District of Massachusetts • 1:26-cv-12326

#1

May 21, 2026

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus - 2241

#2

May 21, 2026

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 Jessica D. Hedges. (CAM) (Entered: 05/21/2026)

#3

May 21, 2026

General Order 19-02

#4

May 21, 2026

Service Order-2241 Petition

May 21, 2026

Notice of Case Assignment

#5

May 27, 2026

Notice of Appearance

#6

May 28, 2026

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

#7

Jun 12, 2026

Chief District Judge Denise J. Casper: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241), filed by Nestor Rafael Guaraca-Sanay. Having reviewed the petition for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (the "Petition") filed by Petitioner Nestor Rafael Guaraca-Sanay ("Petitioner"), D. 1, and Respondents' response 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), at which the government bears the burden of proving Petitioner poses a danger to the community or flight risk, see Hernandez-Lara v. Lyons, 10 F.4th 19, 41 (1st Cir. 2021), 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 twenty-three-year-old noncitizen from Ecuador currently detained in the custody of Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") at Plymouth County Correctional Facility. D. 1 ¶¶ 1, 10, 12. Petitioner entered the United States without inspection on June 12, 2021. Id. ¶ 3. On December 6, 2024, Petitioner was arrested after driving with a suspended driver's license. Id. He has no prior arrests. Id. ¶ 4. 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. ¶¶ 26-27. 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. ¶¶ 18-20, is contrary to statute and regulation, id. ¶¶ 21-24, and arbitrary and capricious, id. ¶¶ 25-28. Although Petitioner further asserts that his arrest by ICE in "April of 2026," and, alternatively, in "February 2026," violated the terms of a prior bond order under which he was previously released from ICE custody in 2019, id. ¶¶ 29-32, he does not attach such bond order to the Petition, and these allegations appear inconsistent with the allegation that he entered the United States in 2021, see id. ¶ 3. The government asserts that Petitioner was instead initially arrested on May 18, 2026, D. 6 at 1 n.3, which Petitioner has not disputed.Discussion. The Petition challenges Petitioner's detention in this district and seeks relief from same. D. 1 at 7-8. 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) (which provides for mandatory detention for "applicants for admission"), as Respondents contend, see D. 6 at 1 n.2; see also Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281, 289 (2018) (discussing the distinction). Respondents 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). See Barbosa da Cunha v. Freden, 175 F.4th 61, 71 (2d Cir. 2026) (affirming that petitioner's detention "is governed by Section 1226 and that he is entitled to a bond hearing . . . consistent with the decisions of . . . over ninety percent of district court judges").Accordingly, the Court ALLOWS the Petition, D. 1, insofar as it sought a bond hearing/individualized custody redetermination under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), at which the government bears the burden of proving Petitioner poses a danger to the community or flight risk, see Hernandez-Lara, 10 F.4th at 41, 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. (SEC) (Entered: 06/12/2026)

Jun 12, 2026

Order

#8

Jun 22, 2026

Status Report

#10

Jun 29, 2026

Order Dismissing Case

Jun 29, 2026

Order