District of Massachusetts • 1:26-cv-12404

#1

May 27, 2026

PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) Filing fee: $ 5, receipt number BMADC-11772125 Fee status: Filing Fee paid., filed by Ahmad Riyad Ahmad Abdalla. (Attachments: # 1 Category Form, # 2 Civil Cover Sheet)(Khanbabai, Mahsa) (Entered: 05/27/2026)

#2

May 28, 2026

ELECTRONIC NOTICE of Case Assignment. Judge Brian E. Murphy 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. (MBM) (Entered: 05/28/2026)

#3

May 28, 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). (MBM) (Entered: 05/28/2026)

#4

May 28, 2026

Judge Brian E. Murphy: ORDER entered. ORDER entered. ORDER CONCERNING SERVICE OF PETITION AND STAY OF TRANSFER OR REMOVAL. Respondents shall determine whether Petitioner is a member of the class certified in Guerrero Orellana v. Moniz, No. 25-CV-12664-PBS (D. Mass.), and notify the Court no later than 1:00 p.m. on Friday, May 29, 2026.Respondents shall provide any further answer to the Petition, if necessary, no later than 1:00 p.m. on Wednesday, June 3, 2026.(MBM) (Entered: 05/28/2026)

#5

May 28, 2026

Copy re 4 Service Order - 2241 Petition, 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) mailed to all respondents on 5/28/2026. (MBM) (Entered: 05/28/2026)

May 28, 2026

Notice of Case Assignment

May 28, 2026

Copy Mailed

#6

May 29, 2026

NOTICE of Appearance by Erica McMahon on behalf of Patricia Hyde, Antone Moniz, Markwayne Mullin (McMahon, Erica) (Entered: 05/29/2026)

#7

May 29, 2026

RESPONSE TO COURT ORDER by Patricia Hyde, Antone Moniz, Markwayne Mullin re 4 Service Order - 2241 Petition,, . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3)(McMahon, Erica) (Entered: 05/29/2026)

#8

May 29, 2026

Judge Brian E. Murphy: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. Respondents are directed to provide a status report no later than 4:30 p.m. on Monday, June 1, 2026, regarding the bond hearing scheduled for that day. That status report should also include the substantive response to Petitioner’s petition—including information on Petitioner’s SEVIS status—originally ordered to be filed no later than 1:00 p.m. on Wednesday, June 3, 2026. (MBM) (Entered: 05/29/2026)

May 29, 2026

Order

#9

Jun 01, 2026

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

#10

Jun 02, 2026

Judge Brian E. Murphy: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. Petitioner is ORDERED to respond to Respondents’ filing, Dkt. 9, no later than June 9, 2026. (MBM) (Entered: 06/02/2026)

Jun 02, 2026

Order

#11

Jun 03, 2026

Response to Court Order

#12

Jun 05, 2026

Judge Brian E. Murphy: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered GRANTING the petition. When confronted with a constitutional challenge like that of Petitioner, “[t]he Court’s task is... simply to ascertain whether the immigration court’s discretion was exercised in a manner consistent with due process.” Miti v. Moniz, --- F.Supp.3d ---, 2026 WL 884639, at *4 (D. Mass. Mar. 31, 2026). Specifically, “the Court considers whether the evidence presented by DHS to the immigration judge was sufficient to conclude, by clear and convincing evidence, that Petitioner is a danger to the community” or, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Petitioner is a flight risk. Id. at *6. “‘[A] sufficiency analysis’ does require ‘some degree of intellectual rigor,’ as it violates due process to ‘give credence to evidentiary interpretations and illations that are unreasonable, insupportable, or overly speculative.’” Id. at *7 (quoting United States v. Pothier, 919 F.3d 143, 146 (1st Cir. 2019)). “Accordingly, the immigration judge, like any trier of fact, was responsible for ‘draw[ing] reasonable inferences from basic facts to ultimate facts,’ taking into consideration the appropriate standard of proof.” Id. (quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979)). Here, the immigration judge (“IJ”) relied on allegations related to Petitioner’s father in an FBI letterhead memorandum to find that Petitioner was a flight risk and a danger to the community. Dkt. 9 -2 at 6. The Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) has explained that IJs “may properly consider agency intelligence assessments, investigative memoranda, and other government records that are probative of whether the respondent’s release would present a danger,” and may thereby admit FBI letterhead memoranda. Matter of Shentu, 29 I&N Dec. 595, 598 (BIA 2026). In Shentu, however, the BIA noted that the memorandum at issue “was issued on FBI letterhead by the Unit Chief of the China Foreign Influence Unit of the Counterintelligence Division and states that the FBI maintains an active investigation of the respondent based on its belief that she is employed by and actively engaged with the Chinese Government. Such evidence is clearly probative of whether the respondent’s release would pose a danger.” Id. The memorandum at issue in the instant case was unsigned, undated, contained no information about any investigations into Petitioner or Petitioner’s family members, and contained no information about any specific activities of concern by Petitioner or Petitioner’s family members. See Dkt. 9-2 at 6. Further, in Shentu, “[t]he respondent offered no persuasive evidence rebutting the substance of the FBI’s national security assessment,” 29 I&N at 598, while Petitioner here provided compelling evidence that the memorandum is internally inconsistent in that it alleges Petitioner’s father is or was a member of two mutually hostile groups, Dkt. 11 -1 at 6–7. Petitioner has thus called the substance of the unsigned memorandum into question. Such evidence cannot support a finding of dangerousness by clear and convincing evidence or flight risk by a preponderance of the evidence. Because Respondents failed to carry their evidentiary burden, Petitioner’s continued detention violates due process. Accordingly, this Petition is GRANTED. Petitioner is hereby ORDERED immediately released. The Court notes, however, that should Respondents obtain additional information to substantiate the allegations in the memorandum, Respondents may be able to re-detain Petitioner at a later date, if an IJ finds that Respondents carried their burden of demonstrating a change in circumstances. See dos Santos v. Noem, 2025 WL 2370988, at *9 (D. Mass. Aug. 14, 2025), appeal dismissed, 2026 WL 1051975 (1st Cir. Feb. 10, 2026).(MBM) (Entered: 06/05/2026)

#13

Jun 05, 2026

Judge Brian E. Murphy: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. FINAL JUDGMENT... In accordance with this Court’s Order (ECF #12) issued on June 5, 2026, granting the Petitioner’s Writ of Habeas Corpus, it is hereby ORDERED: Judgment for the Petitioner against the Respondents. (MBM) (Entered: 06/05/2026)

Jun 05, 2026

Order