District of Massachusetts • 1:26-cv-11138

#1

Mar 05, 2026

PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) Filing fee: $ 5, receipt number BMADC-11591951 Fee status: Filing Fee paid., filed by Marcos Jose Roncancio Rodriguez. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Category Form)(Huntington, Robert) (Entered: 03/05/2026)

#2

Mar 06, 2026

ELECTRONIC NOTICE of Case Assignment. Judge Brian E. Murphy 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 Paul G. Levenson. (CM) (Entered: 03/06/2026)

#3

Mar 06, 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). (MBM) (Entered: 03/06/2026)

#4

Mar 06, 2026

Service Order-2241 Petition

#5

Mar 06, 2026

Copy re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241), 4 Service Order - 2241 Petition,, mailed to all respondents on 3/6/2026. (MBM) (Entered: 03/06/2026)

Mar 06, 2026

Notice of Case Assignment

Mar 06, 2026

Copy Mailed

#6

Mar 09, 2026

Notice of Appearance

#7

Mar 09, 2026

Answer/Response to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus - 2241

#8

Mar 10, 2026

Judge Brian E. Murphy: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. On March 6, 2026, the Court ordered Respondents to “determine whether Petitioner is a member of the class certified in Guerrero Orellana v. Moniz, No. 25-CV-12664-PBS (D. Mass.), and, if so, [to] notify the Court no later than 3:00 p.m. on Monday, March 9, 2026.” Dkt. 4 at 1–2. On March 9, 2026, Respondents answered the Petition, taking the position that “Petitioner is not a member of the class certified in [Guerrero Orellana],” but that “the legal issues presented in this Petition are similar to those recently addressed by this Court in Martinez v. Hyde, 792 F. Supp. 3d 211 (D. Mass. 2025), and Romero v. Hyde, 795 F. Supp. 3d 271 (D. Mass. 2025).” Dkt. 7 at 1. This response is confusing because Guerrero Orellana, Martinez, and Romero all concerned the same legal issue and all reached the same conclusion: that 8 U.S.C. s. 1225(b)(2)(A) is inapplicable to noncitizens initially “apprehended while residing in the United States.” Guerrero Orellana v. Moniz, 802 F. Supp. 3d 297, 308–09 (D. Mass. 2025) (citing Martinez, 792 F. Supp. 3d at 214); see also Romero, 795 F. Supp. 3d at 272–73 (“[T]he interpretation being advanced by the Government, which would require the mandatory detention of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of individuals currently residing within the United States, is contrary to the plain text of the statute and the overall statutory scheme.”). Notwithstanding, there does not appear to be any obvious need to resolve the confusion because the result is the same whether pursuant to the judgment in Guerrero Orellana or under the logic of Martinez and Romero. See Yunga Chuqui v. Lyons, No. 26-cv-11051, Dkt. 11 (D. Mass. Mar. 6, 2026). Petitioner cannot be detained under section 1225(b)(2)(A). Alternatively, “[o]n a warrant issued by the Attorney General, an alien may be arrested and detained pending a decision on whether the alien is to be removed from the United States.” 8 U.S.C. s. 1226(a). In responding to the petition, the Court ordered Respondents to include, “at least, copies of any Notices to Appear, Warrants for Arrest of Alien, or Notices of Custody Determination issued in connection with Petitioner’s current detention.” Dkt. 4 at 2. Respondents did not include with their answer any “warrant issued by the Attorney General,” as would be required under 8 U.S.C. s. 1226(a). See Dkt. 7 . The Court therefore concludes that Petitioner does not satisfy the requirements for detention under 8 U.S.C. s. 1226(a). Accordingly, this Petition is GRANTED. The Court ORDERS that Petitioner be immediately released. (MBM) (Entered: 03/10/2026)

#9

Mar 10, 2026

Judgment

Mar 10, 2026

Order