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

#15

Mar 18, 2026

District Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered re: 13 Motion to Amend.The motion to amend (Doc. No. 13 ) is ALLOWED. To the extent the petitioner's challenges concerning the actions of the two newly added respondents are more appropriately pursued via a mandamus action, this Court has jurisdiction over such an action per the statute the respondents cite in their opposition. The petitioner may amend the petition now before the Court to 1) add the identified respondents and 2) add a claim in the nature of mandamus to compel those respondents to perform any duties petitioner's papers have suggested are owed to her but are not being performed. (FGD) (Entered: 03/18/2026)

#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

#25

Apr 03, 2026

Status Report

#26

Apr 07, 2026

District Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ORDER entered. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE.The petitioner shall SHOW CAUSE by April 14, 2026, why this action should not be dismissed in light of the parties' status report, Doc. No. 25, which suggests the procedural barriers to counsel appearing and litigating on behalf of the petitioner before the BIA have been resolved. (FGD) (Entered: 04/07/2026)

Apr 07, 2026

Order To Show Cause

#27

Apr 14, 2026

Dismiss

#28

Apr 14, 2026

District Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered re: 27 MOTION to Dismiss.ALLOWED. (FGD) (Entered: 04/14/2026)

#29

Apr 14, 2026

Order Dismissing Case

Apr 14, 2026

Order on Motion to Dismiss

#30

Apr 20, 2026

Reopen Case

#31

Apr 21, 2026

District Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered re: 30 Emergency MOTION to Reopen Case.The government shall respond to the petitioner's motion by Thursday, April 23, 2026, and shall include in the response a description of the present status of all matters pending before the BIA as to the petitioner, including the motion to stay her removal order and the appeal of the removal order that were referenced in earlier status reports in this case.(FGD) (Entered: 04/21/2026)

Apr 21, 2026

Order AND ~Util - Set Motion and R&R Deadlines/Hearings

#32

Apr 23, 2026

Opposition to Motion

#33

Apr 23, 2026

Reply to Response to Motion

#34

Apr 24, 2026

District Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. Before the Court is an Emergency Motion to Reopen this matter, which includes a request for reinstatement of the stay-of-removal order that was in effect before this action was dismissed. Doc. No. 30. The undisputed facts are these. The petitioner is a forty-year-old citizen of Ecuador, with at least one minor child, who applied for asylum in the United States because she fears serious harm if she were to return to Ecuador. She is subject to electronic monitoring and intensive supervision by immigration authorities. Days before the scheduled merits hearing concerning her asylum claim in December 2025, the immigration court cancelled the hearing and issued an order of removal due to a failure by the petitioner’s lawyer to make a pre-hearing submission. In the wake of that turn of events, the petitioner identified and retained new counsel, who endeavored to appeal the removal order and reopen the asylum proceedings so that the petitioner’s claim could be considered on its merits. When ICE initiated efforts to effect the petitioner’s removal notwithstanding the foregoing events, she petitioned this court for habeas and mandamus relief. Doc. No. 1. To evaluate her claims, and the Court’s jurisdiction over them, the court issued an order preventing her removal during the pendency of this action. Doc. No. 4. Eventually, after administrative barriers to the petitioner’s new lawyer accessing court records and making filings before the Board of Immigration Appeals were resolved, the parties jointly agreed to the dismissal without prejudice of this action. Doc. No. 27. The petitioner now returns to the Court, having been notified by ICE that renewed efforts to effect her removal from the United States are underway, with a removal plan in place for next week (April 29, 2026). Doc. No. 30. She seeks to renew her challenges in this case, citing three pending requests she has advanced before the BIA: an appeal of the denial of her motion to reopen, a motion to stay her removal pending resolution of that appeal, and an appeal of the removal order. It appears that the last of those requests, if accepted by the BIA and considered “pending” there, would trigger an automatic stay of the petitioner’s removal order. See 8 C.F.R. 1003.6(a). Though they were filed weeks ago, and despite counsel having notified the BIA of the impending removal plan, the BIA had not acted on those requests as of the most recent submission to this Court. Doc. No. 33. What all this means is that the petitioner faces imminent removal (likely with her minor child) to a country where she has claimed a fear of serious harm, without any judge having evaluated the merits of her claim of fear.In light of the foregoing, the Court ORDERS as follows. First, by noon on Tuesday, April 28, 2026, the respondents shall supplement their opposition memorandum with a statement updating the Court regarding the status of the petitioner’s pending appeals and motion before the BIA. Second, the Court will hold a status conference in this case via zoom concerning the request to reopen on Tuesday, April 28, 2026, at 1 PM. The Court anticipates ruling promptly after reviewing the respondents’ supplement and hearing from the parties during the conference. Finally, to preserve the Court’s jurisdiction pending its ruling on the emergency motion, the respondents shall not remove the petitioner from Massachusetts or from the United States pending further Order of this Court.(SED) (Entered: 04/24/2026)

#35

Apr 24, 2026

ELECTRONIC NOTICE of Hearing: Status Conference set for 4/28/2026 01:00 PM in Courtroom 13 (Remote only) before District Judge Leo T. Sorokin. (SED) (Entered: 04/24/2026)

Apr 24, 2026

Order

Apr 24, 2026

Notice of Hearing

#36

Apr 28, 2026

Response to Court Order

#37

Apr 28, 2026

Reply to Response to Motion

#38

Apr 28, 2026

Electronic Clerk's Notes for proceedings held before District Judge Leo T. Sorokin: Status Conference held on 4/28/2026. Counsel appears by zoom. The Court hears from counsel as to 30 Emergency MOTION to Reopen Case and subsequent filings. The Court hears arguments from counsel. The matter is take under advisement. (Court Reporter: Rachel Lopez at raeufp@gmail.com.)(Attorneys present: Jacob Miller and Erica McMahon) (SED) (Entered: 04/28/2026)

#39

Apr 28, 2026

District Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. After due consideration of the record in this case and the recent filings by both parties, the motion to reopen (Doc. No. 30 ) is DENIED. This Court is not empowered to grant the relief the petitioner seeks through its habeas or mandamus jurisdiction. The prior order prohibiting the petitioner's removal from Massachusetts and/or the United States (Doc. No. 34 ) is VACATED. (FGD) (Entered: 04/28/2026)

Apr 28, 2026

Order

Apr 28, 2026

Status Conference

#40

Apr 29, 2026

Notice - Other