District of Massachusetts • 1:26-cv-11789

#1

Apr 16, 2026

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus - 2241

#2

Apr 17, 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 M. Page Kelley. (NMC) (Entered: 04/17/2026)

#3

Apr 17, 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). (SED) (Entered: 04/17/2026)

#4

Apr 17, 2026

District Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ORDER entered. ORDER CONCERNING SERVICE OF PETITION AND STAY OF TRANSFER OR REMOVAL (SED) (Entered: 04/17/2026)

#5

Apr 17, 2026

Copy re 4 Service Order - 2241 Petition, 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241), emailed to Duty AUSA and mailed to Respondents and USAO on 4/17/2026. (SED) (Entered: 04/17/2026)

Apr 17, 2026

Copy Mailed

Apr 17, 2026

Notice of Case Assignment

#6

Apr 21, 2026

Notice of Appearance

#7

Apr 21, 2026

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

#8

Apr 22, 2026

District Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. Wilson Canabarro De Jesus, a citizen of Brazil, has filed a petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2241 challenging his detention by the respondents. Doc. No. 1 . De Jesus alleges, and has submitted documents showing, that he was detained and then released on his own recognizance by immigration officers when he entered the United States in 2024, was permitted until recently to remain at liberty on conditions of supervision imposed by the respondents, and is now detained after the unlawful termination of his release without notice and without an individualized finding supporting such termination. He alleges no changes in circumstances, such as a violation of the conditions of his supervision, and claims his detention violates the Constitution and federal statutes. The respondents do not contest the facts alleged by De Jesus. See Doc. No. 7 . They incorporate their legal arguments from prior cases, in which they defended the relevant noncitizens’ continued detention by claiming it was permitted (and, indeed, mandated) by 8 U.S.C. 1225. As the Court concluded in those cases, and on the facts alleged here, De Jesus is not subject to mandatory detention under Section 1225. His petition is therefore ALLOWED. Because the violation before the Court arises from the termination of De Jesus’s release without any change in circumstances and without any process, let alone due process, the Court finds that ordering a bond hearing is not an adequate remedy. See Murzi v. Noem, No. 26-cv-359, 2026 WL 395111, at *1-2 (D. Colo. Feb. 12, 2026) (citing cases reaching same conclusion). Accordingly, the respondents shall IMMEDIATELY RELEASE De Jesus, no later than 6 PM today, April 22, 2026, and they shall not retaliate against him for the filing of this habeas petition. The respondents shall file a status report tomorrow, April 23, 2026, confirming that De Jesus has been released in compliance with this Order.(FGD) (Entered: 04/22/2026)

Apr 22, 2026

Order AND ~Util - Set Deadlines

#9

Apr 23, 2026

Status Report

#10

Apr 24, 2026

Judgment