District of Massachusetts • 1:26-cv-13045

#1

Jul 01, 2026

PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) Filing fee: $ 5, receipt number AMADC-11859886 Fee status: Filing Fee paid., filed by Estela Nohemy Sola Rivera. (Attachments: # 1 Category Form, # 2 Civil Cover Sheet)(Nader, Eliana) (Entered: 07/01/2026)

#2

Jul 01, 2026

District Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ORDER entered. EMERGENCY ORDER CONCERNING STAY OF TRANSFER OR REMOVAL. (CM) (Entered: 07/01/2026)

#3

Jul 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 Jessica D. Hedges. (SP) (Entered: 07/02/2026)

#4

Jul 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 Monday, July 6, 2026.(CAM) (Entered: 07/02/2026)

#5

Jul 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: 07/02/2026)

Jul 02, 2026

Notice of Case Assignment

#6

Jul 03, 2026

NOTICE of Appearance by Erica McMahon on behalf of Todd Blanche, Patricia Hyde, Todd Lyons, Markwayne Mullin, Sirce Owen (McMahon, Erica) (Entered: 07/03/2026)

#7

Jul 03, 2026

First MOTION for Extension of Time to July 9, 2026 to Respond to Petition by Todd Blanche, Patricia Hyde, Todd Lyons, Markwayne Mullin, Sirce Owen.(McMahon, Erica) (Entered: 07/03/2026)

#8

Jul 03, 2026

Judge Allison D. Burroughs: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered granting 7 Motion for Extension of Time to July 9, 2026 to Respond to Petition. (CAM) (Entered: 07/03/2026)

Jul 03, 2026

Order on Motion for Extension of Time

#9

Jul 07, 2026

Assented to Motion for Immediate Transfer of Petitioner by Todd Blanche, Patricia Hyde, Todd Lyons, Markwayne Mullin, Sirce Owen re 4 Service Order - 2241 Petition(McMahon, Erica) Modified on 7/7/2026 (CAM). (Entered: 07/07/2026)

#10

Jul 07, 2026

Judge Allison D. Burroughs: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered GRANTING 9 Assented-to Motion for Immediate Transfer of Petitioner. (CAM) (Entered: 07/07/2026)

Jul 07, 2026

Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief

#11

Jul 09, 2026

RESPONSE/ANSWER to 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) by Todd Blanche, Patricia Hyde, Todd Lyons, Markwayne Mullin, Sirce Owen. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3)(McMahon, Erica) (Entered: 07/09/2026)

#12

Jul 16, 2026

Judge Allison D. Burroughs: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. Petitioner is ordered to file a supplemental brief elaborating on the legal argument for the due process claim raised in her Petition, [ECF No. 1 16], in light of Respondents' response, [ECF No. 11 ]. Petitioner's brief shall be filed within fourteen days of this order. Respondents may file a supplemental response within fourteen days of Petitioner's brief. (CAM) (Entered: 07/16/2026)

Jul 16, 2026

Order

#13

Jul 31, 2026

BRIEF by Estela Nohemy Sola Rivera . (Nader, Eliana) (Entered: 07/31/2026)

#14

Aug 03, 2026

MOTION Vacate Prohibition on Removal re 2 EMERGENCY ORDER CONCERNING STAY OF TRANSFER OR REMOVAL, 4 Service Order - 2241 Petition by Todd Blanche, Patricia Hyde, Todd Lyons, Markwayne Mullin, Sirce Owen. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(McMahon, Erica) (Entered: 08/03/2026)

#15

Aug 04, 2026

Judge Allison D. Burroughs: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. Respondents have given notice of an intent to transfer Petitioner to Louisiana “in preparation for Petitioner’s removal from the United States,” [ECF No. 14 at 2], and they move the Court to vacate its order prohibiting Petitioner’s removal from the United States, [ECF No. 4 ]. See generally [ECF No. 14 ]. For the following reasons, the motion is DENIED with leave to renew upon a more concrete showing that Mexico intends to accept Petitioner.Respondents are entirely correct that “habeas jurisdiction only extends to review of the legal propriety of Petitioner’s current detention,” and that pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g), the Court “lacks jurisdiction to review [Petitioner’s] removal order and the agency’s intent to effectuate such a final order.” [ECF No. 14 at 3]. Petitioner’s habeas petition, however, does not challenge her final order of removal; rather, it challenges Petitioner’s current detention on the basis that it violated her constitutional due process rights. [ECF No. 1 ¶ 16]. Due to the brevity of Petitioner’s initial petition, after receiving Respondents’ response, [ECF No. 11 ], the Court invited supplemental briefing by Petitioner elaborating on the basis for her due process challenge, and provided that Respondents would be permitted to respond within fourteen days. [ECF No. 12 ]. In light of that procedural history, the Court will not deem arguments raised in Petitioner’s supplemental brief waived. See [ECF No. 14 at 1 n.1].Petitioner’s supplemental briefing challenges whether her removal is sufficiently imminent to support redetention, noting her intent to pursue additional process related to her claim of fear of removal to Mexico, [ECF No. 13 at 3–4], and citing the government’s obligation to make “an individualized determination... that,... based on changed circumstances,... removal has become significantly likely in the reasonably foreseeable future,” [id. at 5 (quoting Kong v. United States, 62 F.4th 608, 619–20 (1st Cir. 2023))]. The only evidence that the government has offered in support of its contention that removal is reasonably foreseeable is its vague “inten[t] to transfer Petitioner... to the South Louisiana ICE Processing Center,” [ECF No. 14 at 1], at which point it “will notify Mexico’s Instituto Nacional de Migracion (“INM”) of Petitioner’s upcoming removal to Mexico,” [id. at 2]. Crucially, however, it appears that removal will not occur until “the INM’s final acceptance” is issued, [id. at 2], and the government has not indicated how long the notice or acceptance periods typically last, what percentage of notices are ultimately accepted, or what factors, if any, the INM reviews in deciding whether to issue an acceptance. See, e.g., Nguyen v. Hyde, 788 F. Supp. 3d 144, 151 (D. Mass. 2025) (explaining what information the government must provide to show that removal is significantly likely in the reasonably foreseeable future where no travel approval has been issued). In Navarro v. Lyons, No. 26-cv-10876, 2026 WL 816791 (D. Mass. Mar. 25, 2026), another session of this Court considered a habeas petition by a Cuban citizen who had been redetained for removal to Mexico pursuant to a similarly vaguely defined process. See id. at *1. The court ordered additional briefing related to the likelihood of removal and, particularly, production of “the agreement between the United States and Mexico whereby Mexico agreed to accept Cuban nationals deported by the United States.” Id. Ultimately, counsel did not produce any written agreement, whether framed in general terms or in terms specific to that petitioner. Id. at *2. The court concluded that the record was “woefully inadequate” and, noting the resemblance between the issues presented in that case and the appeal currently pending before the First Circuit in D.V.D. v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 821 F. Supp. 3d 102 (D. Mass. 2026), concluded that a stay pending decision in D.V.D. was appropriate. Id. at *3.On review of the issues presented by this case, and the showing mustered by the government to date, the Court is not persuaded that removal is sufficiently imminent to warrant dissolution of the stay, particularly where the government has not yet responded to, and the Court has not resolved, the additional arguments raised in Petitioner’s supplemental brief, [ECF No. 13 ]. The government’s motion, [ECF No. 14 ], is DENIED. The government may transfer Petitioner to the South Louisiana ICE Processing Center pursuant to the notice it gave, [id. at 1], provided that it stipulates to the Court’s continued jurisdiction over this action and agrees to give 48 hours’ notice in advance of any further transfers. The stay of removal will remain in place, however, until the issues raised in Petitioner’s supplemental brief are resolved by this Court. (CAM) (Entered: 08/04/2026)

Aug 04, 2026

Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief

#16

Aug 11, 2026

Second MOTION for Extension of Time to August 19, 2026 to File Response/Reply as to 13 Brief by Todd Blanche, Patricia Hyde, Todd Lyons, Markwayne Mullin, Sirce Owen.(McMahon, Erica) (Entered: 08/11/2026)

#17

Aug 11, 2026

Judge Allison D. Burroughs: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered granting 16 Motion for Extension of Time to August 19, 2026 to File Response/Reply. (KF) (Entered: 08/11/2026)

Aug 11, 2026

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

#18

Aug 19, 2026

NOTICE by Todd Blanche, Patricia Hyde, Todd Lyons, Markwayne Mullin, Sirce Owen re 13 Brief Supplemental Response (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3)(McMahon, Erica) (Entered: 08/19/2026)

#19

Aug 19, 2026

Second MOTION to Vacate 4 Service Order - 2241 Petition, 2 EMERGENCY ORDER CONCERNING STAY OF TRANSFER OR REMOVAL by Todd Blanche, Patricia Hyde, Todd Lyons, Markwayne Mullin, Sirce Owen.(McMahon, Erica) (Entered: 08/19/2026)

#20

Aug 21, 2026

Judge Allison D. Burroughs: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. A hearing on Petitioner’s petition, [ECF No. 1 ], and the government’s motion to vacate the Court’s stay of removal, [ECF No. 19 ], is scheduled for August 31, 2026, at 11:00 a.m. in Courtroom 17. The parties should be prepared to discuss the following issues:1. Whether the process received by Petitioner in relation to her claimed fear of removal to Mexico was constitutionally adequate, see, e.g., V.D. v. United States Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 821 F. Supp. 3d 102, 155 n.86 (D. Mass. 2026), appeal filed, No. 26-1212 (1st Cir. argued May 13, 2026);2. What additional pathways, if any, remain available for Petitioner to challenge the agency’s determination that she may be removed to Mexico, and whether those pathways are constitutionally adequate, see, e.g., Sagastizado v. Noem, 802 F. Supp. 3d 992, 1000, 1011–12 (S.D. Tex. 2025);3. Whether there exists an agreement between the United States and Mexico concerning individuals similarly situated to Petitioner or any other basis for the government’s assertions that Petitioner will be promptly removed when the Court dissolves its stay of removal, despite the fact that the government has apparently made no effort to contact Mexico concerning Petitioner, see, e.g., Navarro v. Lyons, No. 26-cv-10876, 2026 WL 816791, at *2–3 (D. Mass. Mar. 25, 2026); J.R.R. v. Genalo, No. 26-cv-03124, 2026 WL 1746716, at *8 (E.D.N.Y. June 17, 2026) (noting that Mexico had “agreed only to consider ‘on a case-by-case basis’ whether to accept noncitizens” and had not reached a decision concerning that particular petitioner); and4. Whether the government’s initial revocation of Petitioner’s order of supervision without making any contact with Mexico or interviewing Petitioner concerning the possibility of third-country removal comported with the regulations governing revocation of an order of supervision, see Kong v. United States, 62 F.4th 608, 619–20 (1st Cir. 2023).Any party that wishes to file a further supplemental brief may do so by August 28, 2026, at 12:00 p.m. Any party that wishes to discuss additional issues at the hearing should give notice to the Court and opposing counsel by that time. (CAM) (Entered: 08/21/2026)

Aug 21, 2026

Order AND ~Util - Set Hearings

Aug 24, 2026

Notice of Rescheduling