District of New Hampshire • 1:26-cv-00159

#1

Mar 02, 2026

NEW CASE/PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 2241/2254. (Filing fee $ 5, receipt number ANHDC-2753462.) filed by Juan Bautista Acero Chuma. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 Exhibit E)(Ladebush, Branden) (Entered: 03/02/2026)

Mar 02, 2026

NOTICE. This case has been designated for Electronic Case Filing. All further submissions shall be filed in compliance with the Administrative Procedures for Electronic Case Filing. Pro se litigants are not required to file electronically and may continue to file documents in paper format. Persons filing electronically are strongly encouraged to complete the interactive training modules available on the courts website. To access these modules, click HERE. (mc)

Mar 02, 2026

NOTICE of Filing - Case filed under 28 U.S.C. 2241. A copy of the petition has been electronically sent via ECF to your office. No further action is required by the United States Attorney unless directed by the presiding judge.(mc)

Mar 02, 2026

Notice - ECF

Mar 02, 2026

Case Assigned

Mar 02, 2026

Notice of Filing to USA - 2255/2241

Mar 02, 2026

Case assigned to Judge Landya B. McCafferty and US Magistrate Judge Andrea K Johnstone. The case designation is: 1:26-cv-159-LM-AJ. Please show this number with the judge designation on all future pleadings. (mc)

#2

Mar 03, 2026

Order Directing Service

Mar 03, 2026

Clerk Service

#3

Mar 04, 2026

Attorney Appearance

#4

Mar 10, 2026

Response to Order to Show Cause

Mar 11, 2026

Order AND ~Util - Set Deadlines

Mar 11, 2026

ENDORSED ORDER. Text of Order: In addition to arguing that the IJ failed to apply the constitutionally required burden of proof at his bond hearing, the petitioner contends that the IJ's flight-risk finding is erroneous, unsupported by the evidence, and lacking in a reasoned explanation. The court construes the petition as asserting that the IJ both (1) failed to apply the burden of proof required by due process and (2) erred in finding by a preponderance of the evidence that he poses a risk of flight that no amount of bond could ameliorate. The court has already found that it has jurisdiction to consider the former argument. See Mayancela Mayancela v. FCI Berlin, Warden, Civ. No. 25-cv-348-LM-TSM, 2025 WL 3215638, at *4-5 (D.N.H. Nov. 18, 2025). The court thinks it likely has jurisdiction to consider the latter. See Wilkinson v. Garland, 601 U.S. 209, 212 (2024) (holding that the application of a legal standard to a set of facts presents a question of law reviewable under 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(2)(D)); Martinez v. Clark, 124 F.4th 775, 779-80 (9th Cir. 2024) (applying Wilkinson to conclude that an IJ's dangerousness finding presents a question of law subject to abuse-of-discretion judicial review despite 8 U.S.C. 1226(e)). On or before March 16, 2026, the parties may submit filings of no more than ten pages addressed to (1) whether this court has jurisdiction to consider a claim that the IJ erred in finding a flight risk irrespective of whether that finding violated the petitioner's constitutional rights, and (2) what standard of review would apply to such a claim. See Samayoa v. Bondi, 146 F.4th 128, 136 & n.4 (1st Cir. 2025) (explaining that, while Wilkinson held that judicial review of fact-laden questions of law answered by IJs should be "deferential," it left open the precise standard of review, and "different deferential standards of review exist out there"). So Ordered by Judge Landya B. McCafferty.(vln)

#5

Mar 15, 2026

Response - not to Motion

#6

Mar 16, 2026

Response - not to Motion