District of Massachusetts • 1:26-cv-12190

#1

May 14, 2026

PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) Filing fee: $ 5, receipt number AMADC-11744171 Fee status: Filing Fee paid., filed by Jose Adan Zamora Luna. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Category Form)(Freidel, Irene) (Entered: 05/14/2026)

#2

May 14, 2026

ELECTRONIC NOTICE of Case Assignment. District Judge Julia E. Kobick 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 Paul G. Levenson. (NMC) (Entered: 05/14/2026)

#3

May 14, 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). (Currie, Haley) (Entered: 05/14/2026)

#4

May 14, 2026

District Judge Julia E. Kobick: ORDER CONCERNING SERVICE OF PETITION AND STAY OR TRANSFER OF REMOVAL entered.The answer or responsive pleading is due no later than May 21, 2026. (Attachment(s): # 1 *SEALED* Appendix) (Currie, Haley) (Entered: 05/14/2026)

#5

May 14, 2026

Copies of the following were mailed to Antone Moniz, David Wesling, Todd Lyons and Markwayne Mullin on 5/14/2026: 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) and 4 Order Concerning Service of Petition and Stay or Transfer of Removal (Currie, Haley) (Entered: 05/14/2026)

May 14, 2026

Copy Mailed

May 14, 2026

Notice of Case Assignment

#6

May 19, 2026

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

#7

May 19, 2026

District Judge Julia E. Kobick: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. Petitioner Jose Adan Zamora Luna, a citizen of Mexico, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on May 14, 2026 seeking his immediate release or, alternatively, a bond hearing pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). ECF 1, ¶¶ 2, 6, 29, and at 12. After entering the United States without inspection in 2004, he is now awaiting to adjust his status as a lawful permanent resident in light of the Form I-130, Alien Relative Petition, filed by his U.S. citizen daughter. Id. ¶¶ 2-3, 29. Zamora Luna was arrested and detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) on April 29, 2026 in Rhode Island. ECF 1, ¶¶ 4, 29. He was subsequently transferred to Massachusetts, where he remains in ICE custody at Plymouth County Correctional Facility. Id. ¶¶ 1, 28, 30.The respondents argue that Zamora Luna is lawfully detained as an applicant for admission under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b). They acknowledge, however, that “the legal issues presented in this Petition are similar to those addressed by this Court in” Gomes v. Hyde, 804 F. Supp. 3d 265 (D. Mass. 2025), dos Santos v. Noem, No. 25-cv-12052-JEK, 2025 WL 2370988 (D. Mass. Aug. 14, 2025), and Sampiao v. Hyde, 799 F. Supp. 3d 14 (D. Mass. 2025). ECF 6, at 1. In those cases, this Court held that 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a)—not Section 1225(b)—governed the petitioner’s detention. Gomes, 804 F. Supp. 3d at 276; dos Santos, 2025 WL 2370988, at *7; Sampiao, 799 F. Supp. 3d at 28. The respondents contend that “[s]hould the Court follow its reasoning in Gomes, dos Santos, and Sampiao, it would reach the same result here.” ECF 6, at 1. The Court agrees and therefore concludes that Section 1226(a), not Section 1225(b), governs Zamora Luna’s detention.Noncitizens like Zamora Luna “detained under Section 1226(a) have the right to request a bond hearing before an Immigration Judge, at which the government bears the burden to prove that continued detention is justified.” Sampiao, 799 F. Supp. 3d at 19-20. Bond may be denied only if the government “either (1) prove[s] by clear and convincing evidence that [the noncitizen] poses a danger to the community or (2) prove[s] by a preponderance of the evidence that [the noncitizen] poses a flight risk.” Hernandez-Lara v. Lyons, 10 F.4th 19, 41 (1st Cir. 2021).For the foregoing reasons, Zamora Luna’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, ECF 1, is GRANTED. The respondents are ORDERED to provide him with a bond hearing pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within 7 days of this Order. The respondents are further ORDERED to file a status report on or before May 28, 2026, notifying the Court whether Zamora Luna has been granted bond and released or, if his request for bond was denied, providing the reasons for that denial. (Currie, Haley) (Entered: 05/19/2026)

May 19, 2026

Order

#8

May 27, 2026

Enforce Judgment

#9

May 27, 2026

Status Report

#10

Jun 10, 2026

Response to Motion

#11

Jun 16, 2026

Leave to File Document

#12

Jun 16, 2026

District Judge Julia E. Kobick: ELECTRONIC ORDER granting 11 MOTION for Leave to File Reply in Support of Motion to Enforce (and Incorporated Reply Memorandum) Counsel using the Electronic Case Filing System should now file the document for which leave to file has been granted in accordance with the CM/ECF Administrative Procedures. Counsel must include - Leave to file granted on (date of order)- in the caption of the document. (Currie, Haley) (Entered: 06/16/2026)

#13

Jun 16, 2026

Reply to Response to Motion

Jun 16, 2026

Order on Motion for Leave to File Document

#14

Jun 25, 2026

Expedite

#15

Jun 29, 2026

District Judge Julia E. Kobick: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered.On May 19, 2026, the Court granted petitioner Jose Adan Zamora Luna’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus and ordered the respondents to provide him with a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within seven days. ECF 7 . At the bond hearing a week later, Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Luciana Dubuc found that he was “a danger to the community by clear and convincing evidence and . . . no alternative to detention exist[ed] that would ensure the safety of the community” and denied him bond. ECF 8-1, at 2. These findings were based solely on Zamora Luna’s recent arrest and charge on April 11, 2026 for driving under the influence (“DUI”) of liquor and a Rhode Island state court summary reflecting that the charge remains pending. See ECF 8-3. Contending that this bond hearing was constitutionally inadequate, Zamora Luna now moves to enforce the Court’s prior order and requests that he be released. ECF 8 . For the reasons that follow, the Court will grant the motion and order his immediate release.The respondents argue, as a threshold matter, that the Court lacks jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(e). In pertinent part, that statute prohibits courts from reviewing “[t]he Attorney General’s discretionary judgment regarding the application of” 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and from “set[ting] aside any action or decision by the Attorney General under this section regarding the. . . denial of bond.” 8 U.S.C. § 1226(e). While “the government maintains discretion in each case to grant or deny bond,” such discretion is limited by “the constitutional restraints applicable to all government action.” Hernandez-Lara v. Lyons, 10 F.4th 19, 34 (1st Cir. 2021). Where, as here, a habeas petitioner asserts that “his detention resulted from constitutionally defective procedures,” he may “challenge those procedures.” Brito v. Garland, 22 F.4th 240, 253 (1st Cir. 2021).The respondents also contend that, by failing to appeal the IJ’s denial of bond to the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), Zamora Luna has not exhausted his administrative remedies. Exhaustion may be excused, however, where a petitioner could “‘suffer irreparable harm if unable to secure immediate judicial consideration of his claim.’” Portela-Gonzalez v. Sec’y of the Navy, 109 F.3d 74, 77 (1st Cir. 1997) (quoting McCarthy v. Madigan, 503 U.S. 140, 147 (1992)). This includes situations where “the petitione[r] remains detained” pending the exhaustion of administrative remedies. Brito, 22 F.4th at 256. Waiver of the exhaustion requirement is warranted here because Zamora Luna, who remains in the custody of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, is likely to experience irreparable harm if he is unable to seek habeas relief until the BIA decides an appeal of the IJ’s denial of bond. SeeGomes v. Hyde, 804 F. Supp. 3d 265, 272-73 (D. Mass. 2025); Sampiao v. Hyde, 799 F. Supp. 3d 14, 25-26 (D. Mass. 2025).On the merits, Zamora Luna argues, and the Court agrees, that the May 26, 2026 bond hearing violated his due process rights under the Fifth Amendment. To continue detaining Zamora Luna based on a finding of dangerousness, due process requires the government to “prove by clear and convincing evidence that [he] poses a danger to the community.” Hernandez-Lara, 10 F.4th at 41. An uncorroborated police report describing Zamora Luna’s DUI arrest is insufficient, as a matter of law, to constitute clear and convincing evidence of dangerousness. See Adegbenro v. Nessinger, No. 26-cv-110-MSM-AEM, ECF 15 (D.R.I. April 1, 2026) (granting habeas petition and ordering immediate release after IJ denied bond based a recent DUI arrest); Li v. Wesling, 26-cv-11601-BEM, ECF 10 (D. Mass. April 9, 2026) (same after bond denial based on two dismissed shoplifting arrests and “several vehicular charges related to running a red light”); cf. Rosa v. Garland, 114 F.4th 1, 17 (1st Cir. 2024) (in adjudicating adjustment of status cases, “the agency may not give ‘substantial weight’ to a police report in the absence of ‘a conviction or corroborating evidence of the allegations contained’ in the report” (quoting In Re Arreguin De Rodriguez, 21 I. & N. Dec. 38, 42 (BIA 1995))). Also insufficient is the state court record reflecting that the DUI charge remains pending because reliance on that charge “is simply additional reliance on the police report.” Rosa, 114 F.4th at 21.In addition, the IJ failed to consider or discuss Zamora Luna’s evidentiary submissions at the bond hearing, including his declaration and several letters of support. See ECF 8-2; Mijango Velasco v. Wesling, No. 26-cv-11355-LTS, ECF 19, at 6 (D. Mass. Apr. 24, 2026) (granting motion to enforce and ordering immediate release where IJ relied “exclusively on an uncorroborated police report without supplying even the briefest of explanations to show how (or even whether) she had evaluated the fulsome record amassed by [petitioner] to counter the government’s dangerousness argument and support his request for release”). Nor did the IJ adequately consider alternatives to detention, which Zamora Luna had affirmatively raised. See Hernandez-Lara, 10 F.4th at 45 (“IJs must consider . . . alternative conditions of release during section 1226(a) bond hearings” (citing Hernandez v. Sessions, 872 F.3d 976, 990-91 (9th Cir. 2017))). The IJ’s wholly conclusory statement that there was “no alternative to detention . . . that would ensure the safety of the community” does not pass constitutional muster. ECF 8-1, at 2. She failed to identify a single alternative to detention, much less explain why obvious alternatives to detention—such as release on bond with restrictions on alcohol use or driving—were inadequate to protect the public. Under the circumstances, the IJ did not afford Zamora Luna a constitutionally adequate bond hearing. See Atariguana-Buele v. Warden, Plymouth County Correctional Facility, No. 26-cv-12168-LTS, 2026 WL 1825934, at *2-3 (D. Mass. June 25, 2026) (discussing prior cases in which IJ Dubuc violated petitioners’ due process rights in bond hearings by failing to consider alternatives to detention).Accordingly, Zamora Luna’s motion to enforce, ECF 8, is GRANTED. The respondents are ORDERED to release Zamora Luna immediately, by no later than 6:00 p.m. today. The respondents must also file a status report by June 30, 2026 confirming their compliance with this Order. (Currie, Haley) (Entered: 06/29/2026)

#16

Jun 29, 2026

District Judge Julia E. Kobick: ELECTRONIC ORDER granting 14 MOTION to Expedite Ruling on Motion to Enforce Judgment (Currie, Haley) (Entered: 06/29/2026)

Jun 29, 2026

Order on Motion to Expedite

Jun 29, 2026

Order on Motion to Enforce Judgment

#17

Jul 01, 2026

STATUS REPORT Re Release by Antone Moniz. (Tolkoff, Benjamin) (Entered: 07/01/2026)

#18

Jul 01, 2026

District Judge Julia E. Kobick: JUDGMENT entered. (Currie, Haley) (Entered: 07/01/2026)