District of Massachusetts • 1:26-cv-11992

#1

May 01, 2026

PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) Filing fee: $ 5, receipt number AMADC-11716086 Fee status: Filing Fee paid., filed by Edson Herculano Dos Anjos. (Attachments: # 1 Category Form, # 2 Civil Cover Sheet, # 3 Exhibit Notice to Appear, # 4 Exhibit Form I-220A)(McHugh, Samantha) (Entered: 05/01/2026)

#2

May 04, 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 Jessica D. Hedges. (CM) (Entered: 05/04/2026)

#3

May 04, 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: 05/04/2026)

#4

May 04, 2026

District Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ORDER entered. ORDER CONCERNING SERVICE OF PETITION AND STAY OF TRANSFER OR REMOVAL (SED) (Entered: 05/04/2026)

#5

May 04, 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 5/4/2026. (SED) (Entered: 05/04/2026)

May 04, 2026

Copy Mailed

May 04, 2026

Notice of Case Assignment

#6

May 05, 2026

NOTICE of Appearance by Julian N. Canzoneri on behalf of Michael Krol, Todd Lyons, Antone Moniz, Markwayne Mullin, David Wesling (Canzoneri, Julian) (Entered: 05/05/2026)

#7

May 07, 2026

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

#8

May 07, 2026

District Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. After reviewing the Petition and the Response, the Court hereby ALLOWS the Petition as follows. Respondents shall release Petitioner by 6 PM on May 14, 2026, unless he is provided a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. 1226(a) before that time. If a bond hearing occurs, Respondents may not at the hearing argue that Petitioner is or should be detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1225, nor may Petitioner be ordered detained pursuant to section 1225. The burdens of proof at any bond hearing are as resolved by the First Circuit in Hernandez-Lara, and should the immigration judge find that the government has met its burden of proof as to flight or danger, they shall consider whether any condition, combination of conditions, or less-restrictive alternative to detention would ameliorate such risk. Respondents shall not retaliate against Petitioner, at a bond hearing or otherwise, for filing this Petition. Respondents shall file a status report no later than May 18, 2026, describing their compliance with this Order. The Court renders this decision in light of the record before the Court, the prior decisions of this Court, the government’s concession that this case is similar to prior cases resolved by this Court, and the circumstances noted in the margin of the response. See Doc. No. 7 at 1 & n.3.(FGD) (Entered: 05/07/2026)

May 07, 2026

Order AND ~Util - Set Deadlines

#9

May 18, 2026

Status Report

#10

May 22, 2026

District Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ORDER entered. JUDGMENT./u> (FGD) (Entered: 05/22/2026)

#11

Jun 01, 2026

Enforce Judgment

Jun 03, 2026

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

#13

Jun 15, 2026

Opposition to Motion

#14

Jun 23, 2026

District Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. On May 7, 2026, this Court allowed the habeas petition in this action and required the respondents to provide the petitioner a bond hearing pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1226(a), applying the burdens of proof under governing First Circuit precedent. Doc. No. 8. On May 14, an immigration judge (“IJ”) held a bond hearing at which the respondents argued the petitioner’s release would pose a danger to the community and a risk that the petitioner would flee (i.e., fail to appear at future immigration-court proceedings), offering exhibits in support of their position. See Doc. No. 11-2 (including report by immigration officers describing arrest of petitioner, and police report and state-court docket related to petitioner’s recent arrest after altercation in his home involving violence and alcohol consumption). The petitioner filed a short memorandum and offered exhibits to counter the respondents’ arguments. See Doc. No. 11-3 (including seven letters of support from friends and family members). The IJ denied bond, rejecting the government’s argument as to danger but finding the record established a risk of flight by a preponderance of evidence. She also found that no amount of bond and no alternatives to detention, including an alternative advanced by the petitioner’s counsel during the hearing, would ameliorate that risk. See Doc. No. 11-1.On June 1, 2026, the petitioner filed a motion asking this Court to enforce its prior order by requiring the petitioner’s immediate release, arguing his bond hearing was constitutionally inadequate. Doc. No. 11. The respondents have opposed the motion, arguing that the IJ considered all the evidence, applied the governing standard, and found that no alternatives to detention would suffice in this case based on the specific circumstances surrounding his recent arrest and the absence of significant family ties or other viable avenues to relief from removal. Doc. No. 13. The petitioner has not filed a reply.After consideration of the parties’ submissions and the record before this Court, including the audio recording of the bond hearing, the petitioner’s motion is DENIED. The Court’s review in this context is circumscribed. See Hernandez-Azuaje v. Hyde, No. 25-cv-13224-ADB, 2026 WL 221833, at *1 (D. Mass. Jan. 28, 2026). This Court is not a forum for de novo review of the IJ’s bond determination. Whether this Court might have reached a different decision is immaterial if the bond proceeding conformed to the Court’s prior order and the Constitution. The Court notes that the IJ engaged with the petitioner’s evidentiary submission, rejected the government’s position concerning danger to the community after applying the appropriate burden of proof, grounded her conclusion regarding flight in the specific facts presented here, and expressly considered whether conditions beyond bond would mitigate the risk of flight. Based on this record, which the Court has reviewed carefully, the petitioner has not established that the IJ’s decision was rendered in disregard of the applicable legal standards or without consideration of all the evidence, or was otherwise so arbitrary that it violates the petitioner’s due-process rights. See Hernandez-Azuaje, 2026 WL 221833, at *2; Diaz Ortiz v. Smith, 384 F. Supp. 3d 140, 144 (D. Mass. 2019).(FGD) (Entered: 06/23/2026)

Jun 23, 2026

Order