District of Massachusetts • 1:26-cv-11252

#1

Mar 13, 2026

PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) Filing fee: $ 5, receipt number AMADC-11608711 Fee status: Filing Fee paid., filed by Karina Marivel Lozano Chiriboga. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Category Form)(Miller, Jacob) (Entered: 03/13/2026)

#2

Mar 13, 2026

ELECTRONIC NOTICE of Case Assignment. District Judge Leo T. Sorokin 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. (SP) (Entered: 03/13/2026)

#3

Mar 13, 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). (FGD) (Entered: 03/13/2026)

#4

Mar 13, 2026

District Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ORDER entered. ORDER CONCERNING SERVICE OF PETITION AND STAY OF TRANSFER OR REMOVAL. (FGD) (Entered: 03/13/2026)

#5

Mar 13, 2026

Copy re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241), 4 Service Order - 2241 Petition emailed to Duty AUSA and mailed to Respondents and USAO on 3/13/2026. (FGD) (Entered: 03/13/2026)

Mar 13, 2026

Copy Mailed

Mar 13, 2026

Notice of Case Assignment

#6

Mar 16, 2026

Notice of Appearance

#7

Mar 16, 2026

Vacate

#8

Mar 16, 2026

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

#9

Mar 16, 2026

Opposition to Motion

#10

Mar 16, 2026

Stay

#11

Mar 16, 2026

District Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. The petitioner filed this action on March 13, 2026. Though she was not then in immigration detention, she was and remains in “custody” for habeas purposes, as she alleged she was on an ankle monitor and intensive supervision by the respondents. Doc. No. 1. The respondents answered the petition today, arguing that the petitioner is subject to a final order of removal and this Court lacks jurisdiction. Doc. No. 8. The respondents also filed a motion asking the Court to vacate its standard stay-of-removal order so that they may take the petitioner into custody and remove her from the United States on March 22. Doc. No. 7. The petitioner has responded to that motion and separately moved to stay her removal. Doc. Nos. 9, 10. In her submissions today, the petitioner asserts that the lawyer she retained to challenge her removal order and seek to reopen her asylum proceedings has been prevented from entering his appearance in immigration court. This, in turn, has prevented her counsel from filing an appeal to the BIA—the deadline for which is looming. Having considered the parties’ submissions and the arguments conveyed therein, the Court rules as follows. The respondents’ motion to vacate (Doc. No. 7) is DENIED. The petitioner has a right to due process guaranteed to her by the United States Constitution. With that guarantee comes a right to hire her own lawyer to represent her in immigration court—and that lawyer must be able to access the necessary court records, make filings on her behalf, and seek relief through the appropriate channels. The petitioner’s submissions suggest this right is being impinged, and this question does not involve a direct challenge to the removal order itself. The Court retains jurisdiction to determine its own subject-matter jurisdiction, including as to this issue. The petitioner’s motion to stay (Doc. No. 10) is ALLOWED insofar as the stay-of-removal order remains in place pending resolution of this petition on the merits. While it is in place, the respondents shall not take the petitioner into custody in order to effect her removal, nor may they otherwise take her into custody or alter her conditions of supervision absent a material change in circumstances. To the extent the motion to stay sought relief beyond that, it is DENIED. The petitioner’s claims and final resolution of this Court’s jurisdiction remain under advisement. (SED) (Entered: 03/16/2026)

Mar 16, 2026

Order on Motion to Stay AND Order on Motion to Vacate

#12

Mar 17, 2026

District Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. The parties shall file, by March 19, 2026, a joint status report stating: 1) whether the petitioner’s counsel has been able to enter his appearance in immigration court; 2) whether the petitioner has filed an appeal to the BIA challenging the removal order and/or the denial of her request to reopen her removal/asylum proceedings; 3) if an appeal has been filed, whether the petitioner has asked the BIA to stay the removal order; and 4) if counsel’s appearance hasn’t been accepted by the immigration court and/or counsel still lacks access to the record in that court, the respondents’ understanding of the reason(s) why that is so.(SED) (Entered: 03/17/2026)

Mar 17, 2026

Order AND ~Util - Set Deadlines

#13

Mar 18, 2026

Amend

#14

Mar 18, 2026

Response to Motion

#16

Mar 18, 2026

Amended Complaint

Mar 18, 2026

Order on Motion to Amend

#17

Mar 19, 2026

Notice - Other

#18

Mar 19, 2026

District Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. re 17 Notice (Other). Respondents shall file a response to this filing by Friday 3/20 at 1pm. (SED) (Entered: 03/19/2026)

#19

Mar 19, 2026

Status Report

Mar 19, 2026

Order

#20

Mar 20, 2026

Response to Court Order

#21

Mar 20, 2026

Dismiss

#22

Mar 20, 2026

Memorandum in Support of Motion

#23

Mar 22, 2026

Opposition to Motion

#24

Mar 23, 2026

District Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered re: 23 Opposition re 21 MOTION to Dismiss Amended Petition.By April 3, 2026, the parties shall file a joint status report regarding: 1) the status of the entry of appearance petitioner’s counsel has tried filing in immigration court and his access to records there; 2) the status of the two appeals the petitioner has tried to file with the BIA; 3) whether the petitioner has asked the BIA to stay the removal order; and 4) if these filings still have not been accepted by the relevant courts, the respondents’ understanding of the reason(s) why that is so. (FGD) (Entered: 03/23/2026)

Mar 23, 2026

Order AND ~Util - Set Deadlines