District of Massachusetts • 1:26-cv-13033

#1

Jul 01, 2026

PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) Filing fee: $ 5, receipt number AMADC-11858740 Fee status: Filing Fee paid., filed by Wilson Figueroa Landaverde. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Category Form)(Hurvich, Carl) (Entered: 07/01/2026)

#2

Jul 01, 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 Paul G. Levenson. (LBO) (Entered: 07/01/2026)

#3

Jul 01, 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: 07/01/2026)

#4

Jul 01, 2026

Judge Brian E. Murphy: 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 Thursday, July 2, 2026.Respondents shall provide any further answer to the Petition, if necessary, no later than 1:00 p.m. on Tuesday, July 7, 2026.(MBM) (Entered: 07/01/2026)

#5

Jul 01, 2026

Copy re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241), 4 Service Order - 2241 Petition emailed to Duty AUSA Annapurna Balakrishna and USAMA Civil Process, mailed to each respondents on 7/1/2026. (MBM) (Entered: 07/01/2026)

Jul 01, 2026

Notice of Case Assignment

Jul 01, 2026

Copy Mailed

#6

Jul 02, 2026

NOTICE of Appearance by Vincent Engingro, III on behalf of Todd Blanche, Antone Moniz, Markwayne Mullin, David J. Venturella, David T Wesling (Engingro, Vincent) (Entered: 07/02/2026)

#7

Jul 02, 2026

RESPONSE TO COURT ORDER by Todd Blanche, Antone Moniz, Markwayne Mullin, David J. Venturella, David T Wesling re 4 Service Order - 2241 Petition, . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3)(Engingro, Vincent) (Entered: 07/02/2026)

#8

Jul 07, 2026

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

#9

Jul 07, 2026

RESPONSE/ANSWER to ' OPPOSITION TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS by Wilson Figueroa Landaverde. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Hurvich, Carl) (Entered: 07/07/2026)

#10

Jul 08, 2026

Entered in error Judge Brian E. Murphy: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. In light of Respondents filings, Dkt. 8 ; see also Dkts. 8 -1 to 8 -4, Petitioner is ordered to show cause on or before Tuesday, July 14, 2026 for why the petition should not be denied. (MBM) (Entered: 07/08/2026)

Jul 08, 2026

Order

#11

Jul 09, 2026

Exhibit

#12

Jul 09, 2026

Judge Brian E. Murphy: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered DENYING the 1 petition. This Court has previously concluded that the six-month presumption in Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001), applies only when “a noncitizen has been detained for fewer than six months following his order of removal. . . . In any other circumstance, there is no special presumption, and the normal habeas rules apply.” Phommachak v. Wesling, 816 F. Supp. 3d 201, 210 (D. Mass. 2026). In the absence of a presumption to apply, if a petitioner makes a showing that “there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future,” the government must respond. Id. (quoting Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 701). Petitioner argues that removal is not imminent in part because he has not yet received a reasonable fear interview, which counsel requested on July 2 and 6, 2026. Dkt. 9 at 7–8. However, the Court has no reason to doubt that such interview will be properly held within the requisite ten days. 8 C.F.R. s. 208.31(b). And the cases that Petitioner identifies for the proposition that “an unprovided reasonable-fear interview is a powerful fact that counters the government’s claim of immediate or reasonably foreseeable removal,” Dkt. 9 . at 9, all involved revocation of release under INA regulations, which is not at issue in Petitioner’s case. Accordingly, on the current record, the Court cannot find that Petitioner’s removal is not reasonably foreseeable. (MBM) (Entered: 07/09/2026)

#13

Jul 09, 2026

Judgment

Jul 09, 2026

Order