District of Massachusetts • 1:26-cv-11601

#1

Apr 06, 2026

PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) Filing fee: $ 5, receipt number AMADC-11658418 Fee status: Filing Fee paid., filed by Shunqing Li. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, Bond Order of Immigration Judge, # 2 Exhibit 2, Unofficial Bond Hearing Transcript, # 3 Exhibit 3, DHS Submission of Evidence, # 4 Exhibit 4, Petitioner's bond evidence, # 5 Category Form, # 6 Civil Cover Sheet)(Ciachurski, Julia) (Entered: 04/06/2026)

#2

Apr 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 Jennifer C. Boal. (SEC) (Entered: 04/06/2026)

#3

Apr 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: 04/06/2026)

#4

Apr 06, 2026

Judge Brian E. Murphy: ORDER entered. ORDER CONCERNING SERVICE OF PETITION AND STAY OF TRANSFER OR REMOVAL.Respondents shall determine whether Petitioner is a member of the class certified in Guerrero Orellana v. Moniz, No. 25-CV-12664-PBS (D. Mass.), and notify the Court no later than 3:00 p.m. on Tuesday, April 7, 2026.Respondents shall provide any further answer to the Petition, if necessary, no later than 3:00 p.m. on Thursday, April 9, 2026.(MBM) (Entered: 04/06/2026)

#5

Apr 06, 2026

Copy re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241), 4 Service Order - 2241 Petition mailed to all respondents on 4/6/2026. (MBM) (Entered: 04/06/2026)

Apr 06, 2026

Copy Mailed

Apr 06, 2026

Notice of Case Assignment

#6

Apr 07, 2026

Notice of Appearance

#7

Apr 07, 2026

Response to Court Order

#8

Apr 09, 2026

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

#9

Apr 09, 2026

Leave to File Document

#10

Apr 09, 2026

Judge Brian E. Murphy: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. Petitioner challenges the constitutionality of his bond determination. Dkt. 1 para. 3. “[F]or someone in Petitioner’s position, there are effectively two options: he can either directly attack some part of the bond process, for example, by ‘point[ing] to the language of the immigration judge’s opinion,’ or else he can inferentially argue that ‘the evidence itself could not – as a matter of law – have supported the immigration judge’s decision.’” Miti v. Moniz, 2026 WL 884639, at *6 (D. Mass. Mar. 31, 2026) (quoting Diaz Ortiz v. Smith, 384 F. Supp. 3d 140, 143 (D. Mass. 2019)).The immigration judge denied bond because Petitioner was found to be a “[d]anger to the community by clear and convincing evidence.” Dkt. 1 -1 at 1. Therefore, Petitioner must show that as a matter of law, no reasonable immigration judge could have found that evidence proved by clear and convincing evidence that Petitioner is a danger to the community. See Miti, 2026 WL 884639, at *6; Diaz Ortiz v. Smith, 384 F. Supp. 3d 140, 143 (D. Mass. 2019). “The clear and convincing standard is a demanding standard to satisfy.” United States v. Anonymous Appellant, 85 F.4th 576, 580 (1st Cir. 2023). “The Supreme Court has described clear and convincing evidence as evidence which ‘produces... a firm belief or conviction as to the truth of the allegations sought to be established, evidence so clear, direct and weighty and convincing as to enable [the factfinder] to come to a clear conviction, without hesitancy, of the truth of the precise facts in issue.’” Miti, 2026 WL 884639, at *7 (quoting Cruzan by Cruzan v. Dir., Mo. Dep't of Health, 497 U.S. 261, 285 n.11 (1990)).Here, Respondents presented to the immigration judge evidence of two arrests for shoplifting from two grocery stores, Dkt. 1 -3 at 7, 13, both of which were dismissed, Dkt. 1 -3 at 12, 18, and an arrest for several vehicular charges related to running a red light, Dkt. 7 -2 at 1. Though the Court credits the police reports in all three instances, these three episodes of nonviolent misconduct, two of which were dismissed, cannot be said to have produced in a reasonable jurist “a firm belief or conviction” that Petitioner is a danger to the community. Accordingly, the Petition is GRANTED. Petitioner is ordered RELEASED.(MBM) (Entered: 04/09/2026)

#11

Apr 09, 2026

Judge Brian E. Murphy: ORDER entered. FINAL JUDGMENT... In accordance with this Court’s Order (ECF #10) issued on April 9, 2026, granting the Petitioner’s Writ of Habeas Corpus, it is hereby ORDERED: Judgment for the Petitioner against the Respondents. (MBM) (Entered: 04/09/2026)

Apr 09, 2026

Order