District of Massachusetts • 1:25-cv-13177

#1

Oct 28, 2025

PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) Filing fee: $ 5, receipt number AMADC-11326058 Fee status: Filing Fee paid., filed by Wilbert Charles. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Category Form Category Form)(Pomerleau, Todd) (Entered: 10/28/2025)

#2

Oct 28, 2025

District Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ORDER entered. EMERGENCY ORDER CONCERNING STAY OF TRANSFER OR REMOVAL. (BAH) (Entered: 10/28/2025)

#3

Oct 29, 2025

ELECTRONIC NOTICE of Case Assignment. District Judge Angel Kelley 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 M. Page Kelley. (LBO) (Entered: 10/29/2025)

#4

Oct 29, 2025

District Judge Angel Kelley: ORDER entered. Order Concerning Service of Petition and Stay of Transfer or Removal. (CEH) (Entered: 10/29/2025)

#5

Oct 29, 2025

Copy re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241), 4 Service Order - 2241 Petition emailed to AUSA Julien Mundele, Rayford Farquhar, Elona Toro, and USAMA Civil Process on 10/29/2025 at 9:38 AM. (CEH) (Entered: 10/29/2025)

#6

Oct 29, 2025

Copy re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241), 4 Service Order - 2241 Petition mailed to All Respondents on 10/29/2025. (CEH) (Entered: 10/29/2025)

#7

Oct 29, 2025

General Order 19-02, dated June 1, 2019 regarding Public Access to Immigration Cases Restricted by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(c). (CEH) (Entered: 10/29/2025)

Oct 29, 2025

Copy Mailed

Oct 29, 2025

Notice of Case Assignment

#8

Oct 30, 2025

Notice of Appearance

#9

Oct 30, 2025

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

#10

Nov 04, 2025

Notice of Appearance

#11

Feb 03, 2026

District Judge Angel Kelley: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. On review of the Petition and Response, the Parties are directed to submit supplemental briefing limited to addressing the applicability of each sub-provision of 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c)(1) to Petitioner. Petitioner is ORDERED to submit a memorandum by February 17, 2026. Respondent is ORDERED to submit a reply by March 3, 2026.(CEH) (Entered: 02/03/2026)

Feb 03, 2026

Order

#12

Feb 04, 2026

Notice of Withdrawal of Appearance

#13

Feb 17, 2026

Response to Court Order

#14

Mar 27, 2026

District Judge Angel Kelley: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. Before the Court is Petitioner Wilbert Charles’ Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus challenging his detention and denial of a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1225(b) and 1226(c) by the U.S. Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. [Dkt. 1]. For the reasons set forth below, Petitioner’s 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is GRANTED. As to Petitioner’s challenge to his detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b), Respondents concede that this case is “materially similar” [Dkt. 9 at 8] to Amaya Sanchez v. Moniz et al., No. 25-CV-12806-AK (D. Mass. Oct. 10, 2025) [Dkt. 10], in which 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 not governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b) but rather, the discretionary bond hearing framework under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). On the facts before it, the Court does not find reason to deviate from the analysis presented in Amaya Sanchez. Thus, Petitioner is not subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b).As to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c), that provision provides an exception to the otherwise discretionary bond hearing framework of § 1226(a) for noncitizens who are inadmissible or deportable by reason of having committed certain enumerated offenses or acts. These include, but are not limited to, drug and human trafficking, prostitution, terrorism, sedition, aggravated felonies, and immigration-related offenses. See 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c)(1). Respondents contend that Petitioner’s prior state conviction for manslaughter, motor vehicle homicide by negligent operation, and leaving the scene of personal injury and death triggers § 1226(c). [See Dkt. 9 at 1-2].The central issue the Court must address is whether § 1226(c) imposes mandatory detention in this case. Respondents do not identify which specific provision of § 1226(c) they believe applies to Petitioner; they did not cite a particular provision in their initial Response [see Dkt. 9], nor did they respond to the Court’s Order specifically directing the Parties to brief that issue [see Dkt. 13]. Without knowing which statutory provision Respondents rely on, the Court is not asked to apply a particular provision of § 1226(c)(1) to Petitioner’s facts or to review an existing removability determination. Instead, the Court is tasked only with determining the threshold issue of whether Respondents have articulated a lawful statutory basis for detention. This question falls squarely within the Court’s jurisdiction. Romero v. Hyde, 795 F. Supp. 3d 271 (D. Mass. 2025) (citing Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281, 281 (2018); Johnson v. Guzman Chavez, 594 U.S. 523, 533 n.4 (2021)) (recognizing that courts may hear “what legal authority govern[s] [a petitioner’s] detention and whether, as a result, [the petitioner] [i]s entitled to a bond hearing”).Moving to the merits, Petitioner is not subject to mandatory detention under § 1226(c) based on the record before the Court. Based on the facts alleged in the Petition—which Respondents’ Response incorporates in full [Dkt. 9 at 2]—none of the provisions enumerated in § 1226(c)(1) clearly applies to Petitioner. Nor have Respondents, as explained, articulated a specific basis justifying their authority to detain Petitioner under § 1226(c)(1). The Court thus finds that Respondents have waived any further argument on this topic for purposes of this Order. Accordingly, Petitioner is not subject to the mandatory detention framework of § 1226(c).Accordingly, Petitioner’s Petition [Dkt. 1] is GRANTED. Respondents are ORDERED to provide Petitioner with a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within ten (10) calendar days of this Order. The Parties are ORDERED to file a status report within fourteen (14) calendar days of this Order stating whether Petitioner has been granted a bond hearing.(CEH) (Entered: 03/27/2026)

Mar 27, 2026

Order

#15

May 05, 2026

District Judge Angel Kelley: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. The Court issued an Order on March 27, 2026, granting Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. [Dkt. 14]. The Order directed the Parties to file a status report within fourteen calendar days informing the Court whether Petitioner has been granted a bond hearing. [Id.]. The deadline of April 10, 2026, has passed without an update as to Petitioner’s hearing. The Parties are hereby directed to file an update within seven (7) days of the entry of this Order regarding the status of Petitioner’s 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) bond hearing.(CEH) (Entered: 05/05/2026)

#16

May 05, 2026

Status Report

May 05, 2026

Order

#17

May 06, 2026

Notice of Appearance

#18

May 08, 2026

Notice of Appearance

#19

May 14, 2026

Response - not related to a motion

#20

May 19, 2026

NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING: Flash drive with Exhibit 2 re 19 by Pamela Bondi, Patricia Hyde, Todd Lyons, Antone Moniz, Kristi L. Noem, Donald J. Trump (CEH) (Entered: 05/19/2026)

May 19, 2026

Notice of Manual Filing

#21

Jun 24, 2026

District Judge Angel Kelley: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. Before the Court is Petitioner Wilbert Charles’ Request for Release. [Dkt. 16]. This Court previously granted Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, ordering Respondents to hold a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). [Dkt. 14]. Petitioner received such a bond hearing, but the Immigration Judge denied bond after finding that he presented a danger to the community, or, in the alternative, a flight risk. [Dkt. 16 at 1]. Petitioner contends that the Immigration Judge’s determination was not supported by sufficient evidence to meet the required standard of clear and convincing evidence as to dangerousness and preponderance of the evidence as to flight risk [Id.]. Moreover, he argues that the Immigration Judge failed to consider alternatives to detention and his ability to pay. [Id. at 3-4, 7]. Respondents disagree and have filed an audio recording of the bond hearing for the Court’s review. [Dkts. 19; 20].Federal district courts have jurisdiction to consider a challenge that the record “‘could not—as a matter of law—have supported’ the immigration judge’s decision to deny bond.” Diaz Ortiz v. Smith, 384 F. Supp. 3d 140, 143 (D. Mass. 2019) (quoting Hechavarria v. Whitaker, 358 F. Supp. 3d 227, 240 (W.D.N.Y. 2019)). A court examining such challenges must be “mindful of [its] obligation to afford . . . a degree of deference to the [factfinder’s] determinations.” United States v. Tortora, 922 F.2d 880, 882 (1st Cir. 1990). Indeed, “the court’s task is narrow: it is to determine whether Respondent[s] complied with the [Opinion] and Order, not to review the hearing evidence de novo.” Massingue v. Streeter, No. 19-CV-30159, 2020 WL 1866255, at *4 (D. Mass. Apr. 14, 2020) (quoting Medley v. Decker, No. 18-cv-7361, 2020 WL 1033344, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 3, 2020)) (alterations in original). The court may not consider a petitioner’s disagreement with the Immigration Judge’s weighing of the evidence and exercise of discretion. Diaz Ortiz, 384 F. Supp. 3d at 144.Here, the record before the Court, including the audio recording of the bond hearing, indicates that the Immigration Judge complied with due process. The Immigration Judge considered the underlying facts of Petitioner’s prior conviction, his family ties, his family’s health issues, and his applications for asylum and adjustment of status. [Dkt. 19-2 at 7:03-16:00]. She also heard arguments from Petitioner regarding alternatives to detention to address both danger to the community and flight risk, which she found insufficient given the nature of his prior offense and that his actions resulted in the death of the victim. [Id.]. She concluded that Petitioner “is a danger to the community by clear and convincing evidence” and that he “poses a flight risk by a preponderance of the evidence.” [Dkt. 19-1 at 1]. Thus, the Immigration Judge articulated the correct standard, heard arguments from both sides on the precise issue of alternatives, and weighed the evidence and arguments before her. Even if the Court were to disagree with her ultimate determination, the Court does not have jurisdiction to review the record de novo or question the Immigration Judge’s weighing of evidence. SeeDiaz Ortiz, 384 F. Supp. 3d at 144.Accordingly, Petitioner’s [Dkt. 16] Request is DENIED.(CEH) (Entered: 06/24/2026)

Jun 24, 2026

Order

#22

Jun 25, 2026

District Judge Angel Kelley: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. On March 27, 2026, this Court granted Petitioner’s Habeas Petition. [Dkt. 14]. On May 5, 2026, Petitioner provided a Status Report indicating that Petitioner had a bond hearing and was denied bond. [Dkt. 16]. He objected to the denial and requested release, which the Court denied after reviewing the record of the bond hearing. [Dkt. 21]. As the Petition appears resolved, absent objection within the next seven (7) calendar days, the Court will terminate the suit.(CEH) (Entered: 06/25/2026)

#23

Jun 25, 2026

Vacate

Jun 25, 2026

Order

#24

Jun 26, 2026

District Judge Angel Kelley: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. On June 25, 2026, Respondents moved the Court to vacate its Service Order prohibiting Petitioner’s removal, noting that Petitioner is subject to a final order of removal. [Dkt. 23]. If Petitioner intends to respond, he is DIRECTED to do so by June 29, 2026. Respondents shall have until June 30, 2026, to reply, if necessary. (JAM) (Entered: 06/26/2026)

#25

Jun 26, 2026

Response to Motion

Jun 26, 2026

Order

#26

Jun 29, 2026

District Judge Angel Kelley: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. On June 25, 2026, Respondents moved the Court to vacate its Service Order prohibiting Petitioners removal, noting that Petitioner is subject to a final order of removal. [Dkt. 23]. Petitioner filed a Response indicating that he assents to the Motion. [Dkt. 25]. Accordingly, Respondents 23 Motion is GRANTED. The Courts prior 4 Service Order prohibiting Petitioners removal is VACATED.(CEH) Modified on 6/29/2026 to edit docket text. NEF regenerated to all parties (CEH). (Entered: 06/29/2026)

#27

Jun 29, 2026

Order Dismissing Case

Jun 29, 2026

Order