District of Massachusetts • 1:26-cv-12092

#1

May 07, 2026

First PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) Filing fee: $ 5, receipt number AMADC-11730105 Fee status: Filing Fee paid., filed by Ronaldo Lopes Silva. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Category Form, # 3 Exhibit Evidence 1 DHS Form I 213, # 4 Exhibit Evidence 2 DHS Police Report, # 5 Exhibit Evidence 3 Petitioner Bond Evidence, # 6 Exhibit Evidence 4 Petitioner Bond Evidence)(Mandache, Costica) (Entered: 05/07/2026)

#2

May 07, 2026

EXHIBIT re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241), IJ Order on Bond by Ronaldo Lopes Silva. (Mandache, Costica) (Entered: 05/07/2026)

#3

May 08, 2026

ELECTRONIC NOTICE of Case Assignment. Judge Myong J. Joun 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. (MBM) (Entered: 05/08/2026)

#4

May 08, 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). (SP) (Entered: 05/08/2026)

#5

May 08, 2026

Judge Myong J. Joun: ORDER entered. SERVICE ORDER re 2241 Petition. Order entered pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2243 governing Section 2241 cases for service on respondents. The answer or responsive pleading is due no later than May 13, 2026.(SP) (Entered: 05/08/2026)

#6

May 08, 2026

Copy re 5 Service Order - 2241 Petition, 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241), mailed to All Respondents on 5/8/2026. (SP) (Entered: 05/08/2026)

May 08, 2026

Copy Mailed

May 08, 2026

Notice of Case Assignment

#7

May 13, 2026

Notice of Appearance

#8

May 13, 2026

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

#9

May 18, 2026

ELECTRONIC NOTICE of Hearing. A Status Conference is set for 5/21/2026 at 11:00 AM remotely by video before Judge Myong J. Joun. Counsel of record will receive a video conference invite at the email registered in CM/ECF. (SKY) (Entered: 05/18/2026)

May 18, 2026

Notice of Hearing

#10

May 20, 2026

Status Report

#11

May 20, 2026

Memorandum of Law

#12

May 21, 2026

Status Report

#13

May 21, 2026

Electronic Clerk's Notes for proceedings held before Judge Myong J. Joun: Status Conference held on 5/21/2026.This hearing was held remotely by videoconference. The Court reviewed the status of the case with the parties and heard from them regarding the bond hearing held as to Ronaldo Lopes Silva before the Immigration Judge. The parties were directed to file the transcript of that hearing in this case. (Court Reporter: Jamie Halpin at jkhhalpin@gmail.com.) (Attorneys present: Mandache for the Petitioner; Engingro for the respondent) (SKY) (Entered: 05/21/2026)

#14

May 21, 2026

Exhibit

#15

May 21, 2026

Judge Myong J. Joun: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. Petitioner has filed an unofficial transcript of the bond hearing held in immigration court, Doc. No. 14 . The Court directs Respondents to either stipulate to the accuracy of this unofficial transcript, or to supplement their opposition by filing a copy of the official transcript of the bond hearing. (SKY) (Entered: 05/21/2026)

#16

May 21, 2026

Status Report

May 21, 2026

Order

May 21, 2026

Status Conference

#17

May 27, 2026

Judge Myong J. Joun: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. On May 21, 2026, I directed the Respondents to either stipulate to the accuracy of the unofficial transcript of the bond hearing or to file an official copy of the transcript. Doc. No. 15 . Respondents confirmed the same day in a status report that they will file an official transcript, see Doc. No. 16, but one has not yet been filed. Respondents are ORDERED to file the official transcript no later than 3pm on May 29, 2026. (SKY) (Entered: 05/27/2026)

May 27, 2026

Order

#18

May 29, 2026

Response to Court Order

#19

Jun 04, 2026

Judge Myong J. Joun: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. On April 15, 2026, the Court ordered Respondents to provide Petitioner with a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). See Lopes Silva v. Moniz et al., 26-cv-11669, at Doc. No. 8 . On April 20, 2026, stating that Petitioner “doesn’t submit much of any regarding his danger to the community,” [Doc. No. 18-1 at 11:15–21], an immigration judge (“IJ”) denied Petitioner release on bond, finding that he was a danger to the community by clear and convincing evidence. [Doc. No. 1 at 1]. Petitioner now files this new habeas petition or, in the alternative, a motion to enforce the initial habeas decision. [Doc. No. 1]. I construe this Petition as a motion to enforce my previous decision at 26-cv-11669, [Doc. No. 8].This Court has jurisdiction to review whether the bond hearing it ordered comported with constitutionally mandated burdens of proof. See, e.g., Massingue v. Streeter, No. 19-cv-30159, 2020 WL 1866255, at *3 (D. Mass. Apr. 14, 2020) (“[A] district court retains jurisdiction to review compliance with its earlier order conditionally granting habeas relief.” (quoting Diaz Ortiz v. Smith, 384 F. Supp. 3d 140, 142 (D. Mass. 2019))); Hernandez-Lara v. Lyons, 10 F.4th 19, 33 (1st Cir. 2021) (noting that 8 U.S.C. § 1226(e) does not preclude challenges to “the extent of the Government’s detention authority under the ‘statutory framework’ as a whole” (quoting Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281, 295 (2018))). Specifically, the First Circuit has held that the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause requires that the government prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that a noncitizen is a danger before a noncitizen may be denied release on bond on that basis. Hernandez-Lara, 10 F.4th at 23. And while “even charges that do not result in a conviction can form the basis for denial of relief,” id. at *6 (quoting Lee v. Barr, 975 F.3d 69, 76 (1st Cir. 2020)), the clear and convincing standard requires a heightened standard of proof. See Hernandez, 10 F.4th at 39; but seeDavis v. Garland, 708 F. Supp.3d 283, 297 (W.D.N.Y. 2023) (finding that records of criminal convictions, standing by themselves, cannot constitute clear and convincing evidence of dangerousness).Here, based on the evidence before the IJ and the official transcript of the hearing, it is clear that the IJ failed to properly apply the mandated burden of proof. Petitioner does not have any history of violence; he has no criminal record – no arrests and no convictions. See [Doc. No. 18-1 at 9:2]. The IJ relied only on an allegation of assault, contained in an unsigned police report, written by officers who did not witness the alleged incident. [Doc. No. 18-1 at 7:1]. Clear and convincing evidence requires much more than that. See Miti v. Moniz, 26-cv-11327, 2026 WL 884639 at *2 (D. Mass. March 31, 2026) (finding denial of bond based solely on police report in misdemeanor assault case insufficient as a matter of law to support immigration judge’s finding of clear and convincing evidence of dangerousness).What is more, it is abundantly clear that the facts as alleged in the 1/5/26 police report, even if assumed to be true, cannot as a matter of law be sufficient to support the IJ’s finding of dangerousness by clear and convincing evidence. The officer’s determination that Petitioner was the primary physical aggressor is wholly unsupported. The facts as relayed to the officers reflect that the alleged victim, J.V., was the initial aggressor by becoming agitated by Petitioner asking to borrow J.V.’s coat, and insulting Petitioner which resulted in a verbal argument, which then escalated when J.V. got up and physically confronted Petitioner, causing Petitioner to push J.V. away. J.V. then called police. [Doc. No. 1-4 at 6-7]. When officers arrived, J.V. advised them that he was not injured. [Id.]. It is also worth noting that on May 21, 2026, the criminal case was resolved when the simple assault charges were “placed on file without a finding,” with Petitioner maintaining his not guilty plea. [Doc. No. 12-1].Respondents do not attempt to address any of the above, instead arguing in their response that Petitioner failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. See [Doc. No. 8]. That argument does not persuade because, as noted supra, this Court retains jurisdiction to ensure its ordered bond hearing complies with due process. After careful review, I conclude that the evidence in the record before the IJ could not, as a matter of law, have supported the IJ’s decision. The hearing afforded to Petitioner failed to satisfy the minimum requirements of due process. Accordingly, Petitioner’s motion to enforce this Court’s previous decision, Lopes Silva v. Moniz et al., 26-cv-11669, at [Doc. No. 8], is GRANTED. Respondents are ORDERED to release Petitioner immediately, no later than 6pm today, June 4, 2026. This order is without prejudice to Respondents requiring Petitioner to comply with reasonable conditions of supervision upon release, provided that such conditions are imposed, and written notice to Petitioner is provided, within seven days of this order. Respondents are ORDERED to file a status report by 3:00 p.m. on June 5, 2026, confirming their compliance with this order.(SP) (Entered: 06/04/2026)

Jun 04, 2026

Order

#20

Jun 05, 2026

Status Report

#21

Jun 05, 2026

Order Dismissing Case