District of Massachusetts • 1:26-cv-12562

#1

Jun 04, 2026

PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) Filing fee: $ 5, receipt number AMADC-11794932 Fee status: Filing Fee paid., filed by Hugo Leonel Alvarez Cruz. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Category Form, # 3 Exhibit DHS Detainee Locator)(Estrada, Carlos) (Entered: 06/04/2026)

#2

Jun 04, 2026

Judge Indira Talwani: ORDER entered. EMERGENCY ORDER CONCERNING STAY OF TRANSFER OR REMOVAL. (MMR) (Entered: 06/04/2026)

#3

Jun 05, 2026

ELECTRONIC NOTICE of Case Assignment. 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. (JAM) (Entered: 06/05/2026)

#4

Jun 05, 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). (FGD) (Entered: 06/05/2026)

#5

Jun 05, 2026

District Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ORDER entered. ORDER CONCERNING SERVICE OF PETITION AND STAY OF TRANSFER OR REMOVAL. (FGD) (Entered: 06/05/2026)

#6

Jun 05, 2026

Copy re 5 Service Order - 2241 Petition, 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241), emailed to Duty AUSA and mailed to Respondents and USAO on 6/5/2026. (FGD) (Entered: 06/05/2026)

Jun 05, 2026

Copy Mailed

Jun 05, 2026

Notice of Case Assignment

#7

Jun 09, 2026

NOTICE of Appearance by Erica McMahon on behalf of Todd W. Blanche, Patricia Hyde, Antone Moniz, Markwayne Mullin, David J. Venturella (McMahon, Erica) (Entered: 06/09/2026)

#8

Jun 09, 2026

RESPONSE/ANSWER to Petitioner's 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241), by Todd W. Blanche, Patricia Hyde, Antone Moniz, Markwayne Mullin, David J. Venturella. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(McMahon, Erica) (Entered: 06/09/2026)

#9

Jun 10, 2026

District Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. After reviewing the Petition and the Response, the Court hereby ALLOWS the Petition as follows. Respondents shall release Petitioner by 6 PM on June 17, 2026, unless he is provided a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) before that time. If a bond hearing occurs, Respondents may not at the hearing argue that Petitioner is or should be detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1225, nor may Petitioner be ordered detained pursuant to § 1225. The burdens of proof at any bond hearing are as resolved by the First Circuit in Hernandez-Lara, and should the immigration judge find that the government has met its burden of proof as to flight or danger, they shall consider whether any condition, combination of conditions, or less-restrictive alternative to detention would ameliorate such risk. Respondents shall not retaliate against Petitioner, at a bond hearing or otherwise, for filing this Petition. If a bond hearing occurs, Respondents shall provide a copy of this Order to the Immigration Judge no later than at the start of the hearing. Respondents shall file a status report no later than June 18, 2026, describing their compliance with this Order. The Court renders this decision in light of the record before the Court, the prior decisions of this Court, and the government’s concession that this case is similar to prior cases resolved by this Court. See Doc. No. 8 .(FGD) (Entered: 06/10/2026)

Jun 10, 2026

Order AND ~Util - Set Deadlines

#10

Jun 16, 2026

Status Report

#11

Jun 17, 2026

MOTION to Enforce Judgment Requesting Immediate Release by Hugo Leonel Alvarez-Cruz. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1)(Estrada, Carlos) (Entered: 06/17/2026)

#12

Jun 18, 2026

District Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered: re 11 MOTION to Enforce Judgment Requesting Immediate Release.The response to Petitioner's motion to enforce is due June 25, 2026. Respondents shall file with their response (1) either a transcript or an audio recording of the bond hearing and (2) any additional exhibits presented to the IJ beyond those Petitioner attached to his motion. (FGD) (Entered: 06/18/2026)

Jun 18, 2026

Order AND ~Util - Set Motion and R&R Deadlines/Hearings

#13

Jun 25, 2026

Extension of Time to File Response/Reply

#14

Jun 25, 2026

District Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered: 13 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 12 Order. The respondents’ motion for an extension of time to respond to the petitioner’s motion to enforce judgment (Doc. No. 13 ) is ALLOWED in part and DENIED in part as follows. To the extent the respondents seek an extension of the deadline by which the Court ordered them to submit copies of the exhibits presented to the immigration judge in connection with the bond hearing and a copy of the audio recording of the bond hearing, the motion is DENIED. The motion itself reflects that at least some of these materials are already in counsel’s possession, and it does not establish good cause for delaying the submission of any of these materials to the Court. The exhibits and the recording remain due TODAY. To the extent the motion seeks a stay or an extension of unspecified duration of the filing deadline for the respondents’ opposition to the motion to enforce, it is DENIED. The motion is ALLOWED only to the extent that the respondents may file their opposition to the motion to enforce by Monday, June 29, 2026. Nothing in this ruling prevents the respondents from separately pursuing any motions now pending or yet to be filed before the immigration judge, nor interferes with the immigration judge’s ability to resolve such motions when and how they deem appropriate.(FGD) (Entered: 06/25/2026)

#15

Jun 25, 2026

Response to Court Order

Jun 25, 2026

Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply

#16

Jun 29, 2026

Response to Motion

#17

Jul 01, 2026

District Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. On June 10, 2026, this Court allowed the habeas petition in this action 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. Doc. No. 9. On June 15, an immigration judge (“IJ”) held a bond hearing at which the respondents argued the petitioner would pose a danger to the community if released, offering exhibits in support of their position. See Doc. No. 15-1 (including report by immigration officers describing petitioner’s immigration history and arrest report and court documents arising from April 2026 domestic assault allegations). The petitioner offered exhibits to counter the respondents’ argument. See Doc. No. 11-1 (including letters of support from landlord and members of community). The IJ denied bond, finding the petitioner “is a danger to the community by clear and convincing evidence and there is no alternative to detention... that would ensure the safety of the community.” Doc. No. 10-1. Two days later, the petitioner filed a motion asking this Court to order his immediate release or require a new bond hearing, arguing the IJ “summarily denied” bond using “boilerplate language” and improperly relying “entirely on an uncorroborated police report.” Doc. No. 11 at 1-2. The government has opposed the motion, arguing the petitioner must first exhaust the available administrative remedies by appealing the IJ’s decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals and that, in any event, the IJ applied the appropriate legal standard. Doc. No. 16; cf. Dos Reis v. Vitello, No. 25-cv-10497-RGS, 2025 WL 1043434, at *2 (D. Mass. Apr. 8, 2025) (declining in similar circumstances to intervene as to bond before pursuit of ordinary review process).After consideration of the parties’ submissions and the record before this Court, including an audio recording of the bond hearing that was produced to the Court and the petitioner’s counsel, the petitioner’s motion (Doc. No. 11) 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 and did not violate this Court’s ordered relief or the standards governing bond hearings by considering the contents of a police report, where the report conveys an officer’s first-hand observations of injuries that corroborated the alleged victim’s report. See Ganzhi v. Moniz, No. 26-cv-11478-PBS, 2026 WL 1194941, at *1 (D. Mass. May 1, 2026). The petitioner did not during the bond proceeding advocate for any alternatives to detention, nor has he done so in the papers filed with this Court. He had an opportunity to refute the government’s evidence at the bond hearing but did not offer any declaration or testimony addressing the pending charges. The IJ considered and addressed the arguments his attorney made regarding the charges. In these circumstances, the record does not establish that the IJ’s decision was so arbitrary that it violates this Court’s order or 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: 07/01/2026)

#18

Jul 01, 2026

Judgment

Jul 01, 2026

Order