District of Massachusetts • 1:26-cv-11102

#1

Mar 04, 2026

PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) Filing fee: $ 5, receipt number AMADC-11587421 Fee status: Filing Fee paid., filed by Omar Jorge Montesinos Olivar. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Category Form Category Form)(Tietjen, Rhonda) (Entered: 03/04/2026)

#2

Mar 04, 2026

ELECTRONIC NOTICE of Case Assignment. Judge Allison D. Burroughs assigned to case. If the trial Judge issues an Order of Reference of any matter in this case to a Magistrate Judge, the matter will be transmitted to Magistrate Judge Jessica D. Hedges. (SP) (Entered: 03/04/2026)

#3

Mar 04, 2026

Judge Allison D. Burroughs: ORDER entered. Order Concerning Service of Petition and Stay of Transfer or Removal. The answer or responsive pleading is due no later than March 16, 2026. (CAM) (Entered: 03/04/2026)

#4

Mar 04, 2026

General Order 19-02, dated June 1, 2019 regarding Public Access to Immigration Cases Restricted by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(c). (CAM) (Entered: 03/04/2026)

#5

Mar 04, 2026

Copy re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241), 3 Service Order - 2241 Petition emailed to Duty AUSA Canzoneri and Civil Process and mailed to Respondents on 3/4/2026. (CAM) (Entered: 03/04/2026)

Mar 04, 2026

Notice of Case Assignment

Mar 04, 2026

Copy Mailed

#6

Mar 05, 2026

Notice of Appearance

#7

Mar 16, 2026

RESPONSE/ANSWER to ABBREVIATED RESPONSE TO HABEAS PETITION AND REQUEST TO PROCEED WITHOUT ADDITIONAL BRIEFING OR ARGUMENT by Todd Lyons, Antone Moniz, Kristi L Noem, David Wesling. (Sady, Michael) (Entered: 03/16/2026)

#8

Mar 16, 2026

Judge Allison D. Burroughs: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. Before the Court is Petitioner Omar Jorge Montesinos Olivar’s petition for writ of habeas corpus. [ECF No. 1 ]. Respondents submit that “the principal legal issues in this case substantially overlap with those at issue in [Morales v. Plymouth County Correctional Facility, No. 25-cv-12602, ECF No. 15 (D. Mass. Sept. 30, 2025), and Rocha v. Hyde, No. 25-cv-12584, 2025 WL 2807692 (D. Mass. Oct. 2, 2025)].” [ECF No. 7 at 4]. In those cases, the Court joined other sessions of this Court, and other courts across the country, in holding that the arrest and detention of noncitizens within the United States is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). Rocha, 2025 WL 2807692, at *2. Respondents further acknowledge that “if the Court adheres to its reasoning [in Morales and Rocha],” it will likely conclude that Petitioner’s arrest and detention is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). [ECF No. 7 at 1]. On the facts before it, the Court does not find reason to deviate from its prior analysis. Petitioner is subject to 8 U.S.C. § 1226’s discretionary detention framework and, accordingly, entitled to a bond hearing. He has not received such a hearing, so his detention is unlawful.Petitioner’s petition, [ECF No. 1 ], is GRANTED. Respondents are ORDERED to provide Petitioner with a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within 10 days of this order. Respondents are ENJOINED from denying Petitioner bond on the basis that he is detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). Respondents are ORDERED to file a status report within 14 days of this order stating whether Petitioner has been granted bond, and, if his request for bond was denied, the reasons for that denial.In addition, Respondents shall SHOW CAUSE within 10 days of this order why Petitioner is not entitled to an award of reasonable fees and costs as a “prevailing party” under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412. See [ECF No. 1 at 11 (requesting such an award)]. Petitioner may respond to Respondents’ submission within 10 days of its filing and shall include with his response an itemization of the fees and costs he seeks. Respondents may reply within 7 days of Petitioner’s submission and may include in their reply any objection to the reasonableness or basis of the amount(s) requested.(CAM) (Entered: 03/16/2026)

Mar 16, 2026

Order To Show Cause

#9

Mar 17, 2026

Status Report

#10

Mar 26, 2026

Response to Order to Show Cause

#11

Apr 21, 2026

Enforce Judgment

#12

Apr 21, 2026

Memorandum in Support of Motion

#13

May 05, 2026

RESPONSE to Motion re 11 MOTION to Enforce Judgment filed by Todd Lyons, Antone Moniz, Kristi L. Noem, David Wesling. (Sady, Michael) (Entered: 05/05/2026)

#14

May 07, 2026

Judge Allison D. Burroughs: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. On March 16, 2026, the Court ordered Respondents to provide Petitioner with a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). [ECF No. 8 ]. On March 26, 2026, an immigration judge denied Petitioner release on bond, finding that he was a flight risk. [ECF No. 11-1]. Petitioner now moves to enforce the Court’s judgment, arguing that the immigration judge’s decision violated constitutional due process. [ECF No. 11 ].This Court has jurisdiction to review whether the bond hearing it ordered comported with constitutionally mandated burdens of proof. See, e.g., Massingue v. Streeter, No. 19-cv-30159, 2020 WL 1866255, at *3 (D. Mass. Apr. 14, 2020) (“[A] district court retains jurisdiction to review compliance with its earlier order conditionally granting habeas relief.” (quoting Diaz Ortiz v. Smith, 384 F. Supp. 3d 140, 142 (D. Mass. 2019))); Hernandez-Lara v. Lyons, 10 F.4th 19, 33 (1st Cir. 2021) (noting that 8 U.S.C. § 1226(e) does not preclude challenges to “the extent of the Government’s detention authority under the ‘statutory framework’ as a whole” (quoting Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281, 295 (2018))). Specifically, the First Circuit has held that the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause requires that the government prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that a noncitizen is a flight risk before a noncitizen may be denied release on bond on that basis. Hernandez-Lara, 10 F.4th at 41. To show that an immigration judge failed to apply this standard, a noncitizen must either “point to the language of the immigration judge’s opinion or demonstrate that ‘the evidence itself could not—as a matter of law—have supported’ the immigration judge’s decision to deny bond.” Diaz Ortiz, 384 F. Supp. 3d at 143 (quoting Hechavarria v. Whitaker, 358 F. Supp. 3d 227, 240 (W.D.N.Y. 2019)). The Court’s review in this context is extraordinarily limited: Habeas relief is appropriate only if the immigration judge’s “exercise of discretion in denying bond was so arbitrary that it would offend fundamental tenets of due process.” Id. at 144 (quoting Pratt v. Doll, No. 17-cv-1020, 2019 WL 722578, at *4 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 20, 2019)).Here, based on the Court’s review of the evidence before the immigration judge and the unofficial transcript of the hearing, the authenticity and accuracy of which Respondents do not contest, see [ECF No. 13 at 9], the immigration judge’s decision failed to satisfy the minimum requirements of due process. At the hearing, the immigration judge denied bond based solely on the fact that Petitioner was arrested in Maine but indicated that he had previously lived and would live in New York if released, stating that “it’s unclear... there’s contradictory evidence on the record... [to] show... where he will live and attend his hearing.” [ECF No. 11-2 at 4]. This explanation ignored Petitioner’s sworn declaration that explained that he was in Maine on a roofing job, [ECF No. 11-3 at 14 ¶ 8], and, based on the hearing transcript, the immigration judge utterly failed to grapple with, or acknowledge in any way, the substantial body of evidence relevant to the bond determination presented by Petitioner and the government, [ECF No. 11-2 at 1–4]. While immigration judges “‘need not discuss ad nauseam every piece of evidence,’ they ‘may not simply ignore substantial testimonial and documentary proof.’” Garcia v. Hyde, No. 25-cv-585, 2025 WL 3466312, at *1 (D.R.I. Dec. 3, 2025) (quoting Barnica-Lopez v. Garland, 59 F.4th 520, 530 (1st Cir. 2023)), and “the logical underpinnings” of their decisions, at least, must be “clear from the record,” López-Gómez v. Bondi, 154 F.4th 1, 4 (1st Cir. 2025) (quoting Rivera-Medrano v. Garland, 47 F.4th 29, 39 (1st Cir. 2022)). Here, Petitioner’s mere presence in Maine at the time of arrest does not reasonably support the immigration judge’s conclusion that that Petitioner presented a flight risk. Moreover, even if his presence in Maine were cause for concern, the immigration judge’s statement that “no bond... [would] mitigate his risk of flight,” [ECF No. 11-2 at 4], does not reflect meaningful consideration of alternatives to detention. See Costa v. McDonald, No. 25-cv-13469, 2026 WL 371198, at *3 (D. Mass. Feb. 10, 2026) (ordering renewed bond hearing because “[t]he Immigration Judge's failure to consider whether alternatives to detention or other less restrictive means could address the risks of danger posed by Petitioner to the community was constitutionally deficient”). After careful review, the Court concludes that the evidence in the record before the immigration judge could not, as a matter of law, have supported the immigration judge’s decision, which appears so arbitrary as to violate due process.Accordingly, Petitioner’s motion to enforce, [ECF No. 11 ], is GRANTED. Respondents are ORDERED to release Petitioner immediately, no later than 7:00 p.m. today. This order is without prejudice to Respondents requiring Petitioner to comply with reasonable conditions of supervision upon release, provided that such conditions are imposed, and written notice to Petitioner is provided, within seven days of this order. Respondents are ORDERED to file a status report within seven days of this order confirming their compliance with this order. (CAM) (Entered: 05/07/2026)

May 07, 2026

Order on Motion to Enforce Judgment

#15

May 11, 2026

Status Report

#16

May 12, 2026

Judge Allison D. Burroughs: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. On March 16, 2026, the Court granted Petitioner's habeas petition and ordered that he receive a bond hearing. [ECF No. 8 ]. On May 7, 2027, the Court granted Petitioner's motion to enforce the judgment, ordering Petitioner's immediate release. [ECF No. 14 ]. The government reports that Petitioner has been released. [ECF No. 15 ]. Accordingly, Petitioner's petition is DISMISSED without prejudice.(CAM) (Entered: 05/12/2026)

#17

May 12, 2026

Order Dismissing Case

May 12, 2026

Order