District of Massachusetts • 1:26-cv-12481

#1

Jun 02, 2026

PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) Filing fee: $ 5, receipt number AMADC-11783641 Fee status: Filing Fee paid., filed by Elmer Yobany Orellana Ruano. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Category Form)(Cameron, Matthew) (Entered: 06/02/2026)

#2

Jun 02, 2026

ELECTRONIC NOTICE of Case Assignment. Judge Allison D. Burroughs 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. (CAM) (Entered: 06/02/2026)

#3

Jun 02, 2026

Judge Allison D. Burroughs: ORDER entered. Order Concerning Service of Petition and Stay of Transfer or Removal. The answer or responsive pleading is due no later than June 16, 2026. (CAM) (Entered: 06/02/2026)

#4

Jun 02, 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). (CAM) (Entered: 06/02/2026)

Jun 02, 2026

Notice of Case Assignment

#5

Jun 03, 2026

Copy re 3 Service Order - 2241 Petition, 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241), emailed to Duty AUSA Yen 6/2/2026 and mailed to Respondents on 6/3/2026. (CAM) (Entered: 06/03/2026)

Jun 03, 2026

Copy Mailed

#6

Jun 05, 2026

Notice of Appearance

#7

Jun 09, 2026

RESPONSE/ANSWER to 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241), by Todd Blanche, Patricia Hyde, Antone Moniz, Markwayne Mullin, David J. Venturella. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D)(Sauter, Mark) (Entered: 06/09/2026)

#8

Jun 10, 2026

Notice of Manual Filing

#9

Jun 10, 2026

Judge Allison D. Burroughs: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. This petition for writ of habeas corpus, [ECF No. 1 ], challenges the adequacy of a bond hearing provided to Petitioner on March 12, 2026, [id. ¶¶ 3–5]. That bond hearing was provided pursuant to the order of another session of this Court in Orellana Ruano v. Moniz, No. 26-cv-11091, Dkt. No. 8 (D. Mass. Mar. 5, 2026). Compare, e.g., Orellana Ruano v. Moniz, No. 26-cv-11091, Dkt. No. 9-1 (D. Mass. Mar. 15, 2026), with [ECF No. 7-2]. Because this case should have been deemed related to the earlier matter, see L.R. 40.1(g)(1), pursuant to the joint decision of both sessions, this case is designated as related to Orellana Ruano v. Moniz, No. 26-cv-11091, and reassigned. L.R. 40.1(g)(10).Related cases: Create association to 1:26-cv-11091-LTS.(CAM) (Entered: 06/10/2026)

Jun 10, 2026

Order AND ~Util - Create Case Relationship

#10

Jun 12, 2026

ELECTRONIC NOTICE of Case Reassignment. 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. (CAM) (Entered: 06/12/2026)

Jun 12, 2026

Notice of Case Assignment

#11

Jun 16, 2026

District Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. Petitioner shall file a reply addressing the response (Doc. No. 7 ) by Monday, June 22, 2026. That reply shall include: (1) the materials that Petitioner submitted to the IJ for the initial bond hearing held on March 12, 2026; (2) the materials, if any, submitted for the subsequent bond reconsideration that was resolved on May 18, 2026; and (3) the outcome or status of Petitioner’s application for relief from removal.(FGD) (Entered: 06/16/2026)

Jun 16, 2026

Order

#12

Jun 22, 2026

Status Report

#13

Jun 23, 2026

Order

#14

Jun 30, 2026

Response to Court Order

#15

Jul 02, 2026

District Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. On March 5, 2026, this Court allowed a habeas petition filed by this petitioner in Civil Action No. 26-11091, ECF No. 8, 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. On March 12, an immigration judge (“IJ”) held a bond hearing at which the respondents argued the petitioner would pose a danger to the community and a flight risk if released, offering exhibits in support of their position. See Doc. No. 7-1 (containing more than 100 pages of exhibits, including report by immigration officers describing petitioner’s immigration history and state-court records from eight criminal cases involving petitioner between 2016 and 2025). The petitioner offered exhibits to counter the respondents’ argument. See Doc. No. 12-1 (containing more than 100 pages of exhibits, including records related petitioner’s sponsor, pending asylum application, family, and income taxes, and letters of support from members of community). The IJ denied bond, finding the petitioner “is a flight risk by a preponderance of the evidence and there is no bond that would mitigate his risk of flight.” Doc. No. 7-2. Judgment in the petitioner’s earlier action entered on March 20.Nearly three months later, represented by new counsel, the petitioner filed a new habeas petition claiming his bond hearing was constitutionally inadequate and seeking his immediate release or, in the alternative, a new bond hearing before a different IJ. Doc. No. 1 . The government opposed the petition, arguing the petitioner failed to exhaust his administrative remedies by not appealing the IJ’s bond denial to the Board of Immigration Appeals, that this Court lacks jurisdiction to re-weigh the evidence before the IJ, and that the IJ applied the appropriate legal standard. Doc. No. 7 . After reviewing the parties’ submissions and listening to an audio recording of the bond hearing, the Court concluded that the record did not permit it to resolve either its jurisdiction or the merits of the petitioner’s constitutional challenges. See Doc. No. 13 . And so the Court directed the respondents to obtain and submit a memorandum from the IJ setting forth her reasoning. Id. at 3. The respondents have now done so, and the Court has reviewed the IJ’s written explanation. Doc. No. 14 .Upon careful consideration of the record now before this Court, the petition 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). The IJ articulated the correct standard of proof, considered the submissions of both parties, and reached a conclusion after considering factors relevant to the determination at issue. She rejected the government’s argument for detention on the basis of dangerousness, and she explained the reasons underlying her finding of flight risk. The petitioner did not during the bond proceeding advocate for any alternatives to detention. He had an opportunity to refute the government’s evidence at the bond hearing, and the IJ considered and addressed the arguments his attorney made on his behalf. In these circumstances, the record does not establish that the IJ’s decision was so arbitrary that it violates the petitioner’s due-process rights. See id. at *2; Diaz Ortiz v. Smith, 384 F. Supp. 3d 140, 144 (D. Mass. 2019).(FGD) (Entered: 07/02/2026)

#16

Jul 02, 2026

Judgment

Jul 02, 2026

Order