District of Massachusetts • 1:25-cv-13245

#1

Nov 03, 2025

First PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) Filing fee: $ 5, receipt number AMADC-11335572 Fee status: Filing Fee paid., filed by Julian Diaz. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Category Form Category Form)(Lagana, Stephen) (Entered: 11/03/2025)

#2

Nov 03, 2025

ELECTRONIC NOTICE of Case Assignment. Chief District Judge Denise J. Casper 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: 11/03/2025)

#3

Nov 03, 2025

Chief District Judge Denise J. Casper: ORDER entered. ORDER CONCERNING SERVICE OF PETITION AND STAY OF TRANSFER OR REMOVAL. (SEC) (Entered: 11/03/2025)

#4

Nov 03, 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). (SEC) (Entered: 11/03/2025)

Nov 03, 2025

Notice of Case Assignment

#5

Nov 10, 2025

Notice of Appearance

#6

Nov 16, 2025

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

#7

Nov 24, 2025

Chief District Judge Denise J. Casper: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. Having reviewed the petition for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (the "Petition") filed by Petitioner Julian Diaz ("Petitioner"), D. 1, and Respondents' opposition to same, D. 6, the Court ALLOWS the Petition insofar as it sought a bond hearing/individualized custody redetermination before an immigration judge under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), which the Court ORDERS within seven (7) days of this Order. Respondents are also ENJOINED from denying Petitioner bond on the basis that he is detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). The Court further ORDERS Respondents to file a status report within ten (10) days of this Order stating whether Petitioner has been granted bond, and, if his request for bond was denied, the reasons for that denial.Factual Background. Petitioner is a forty-four-year-old noncitizen from the Dominican Republic currently detained at Plymouth County Correctional Facility. D. 1 ¶¶ 1, 8, 10. Petitioner entered the United States without inspection and without encountering Border Patrol agents in approximately 2009 and has remained in this country. See id. ¶¶ 2, 4. He has no criminal background. Id. ¶ 3. On October 31, 2025, Petitioner was detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Id. ¶¶ 2, 10. Petitioner alleges that his detention is not authorized under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b), and that his custody is properly governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). Id. ¶¶ 18-25. Petitioner contends that his detention without a bond hearing is, therefore, unlawful, including because it violates his rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Id. ¶¶ 15-17.Discussion. The Petition challenges Petitioner’s detention in this district and seeks relief from same. Id. at 7. Accordingly, this Court has jurisdiction over the Petition as it concerns relief that Petitioner seeks challenging his continued detention. Kong v. United States, 62 F.4th 608, 614 (1st Cir. 2023) (noting that "we have held that district courts retain jurisdiction over challenges to the legality of detention in the immigration context").Consistent with this Court's prior rulings, including and not limited to Da Silva v. Bondi, No. 25-cv-12672, 2025 WL 2969163, at *2 (D. Mass. Oct. 21, 2025), and Dias de Carvalho v. Hyde, 25-cv-12677-DJC (D. Mass. Nov. 4, 2025), D. 14, the Court agrees with Petitioner that his custody is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) (which allows for discretionary determinations of custody before an immigration judge) and not 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2), as Respondents contend (which provides for mandatory detention for "applicants for admission"), see D. 6 at 1 & n.2; see Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281, 289 (2018) (discussing the distinction). As alleged, Petitioner was already residing in the United States for over sixteen years before ICE detained him. D. 1 ¶¶ 2, 4. Respondents do not dispute these allegations and instead submit that this Court’s decision in Dias de Carvalho is likely dispositive here. See D. 6 at 1. Thus, the Court concludes that Petitioner is entitled to a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). For the foregoing reasons, the Court concludes as follows. The Court ALLOWS the Petition, D. 1, insofar as it sought a bond hearing/individualized custody redetermination under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), which the Court ORDERS within seven (7) days of this Order. Respondents are also ENJOINED from denying Petitioner bond on the basis that he is detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). The Court further ORDERS Respondents to file a status report within ten (10) days of this Order stating whether Petitioner has been granted bond, and, if his request for bond was denied, the reasons for that denial. (LMH) (Entered: 11/24/2025)

Nov 24, 2025

Order

#8

Dec 03, 2025

Status Report

#9

Dec 04, 2025

Order Dismissing Case