District of Massachusetts • 1:26-cv-13113

#1

Jul 09, 2026

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus - 2241

#2

Jul 09, 2026

ELECTRONIC NOTICE of Case Assignment. Chief District Judge Denise J. Casper 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: 07/09/2026)

#3

Jul 09, 2026

General Order 19-02

Jul 09, 2026

Notice of Case Assignment

#4

Jul 10, 2026

Service Order-2241 Petition

#5

Jul 15, 2026

Notice of Appearance

#6

Jul 24, 2026

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

#7

Aug 10, 2026

Chief District Judge Denise J. Casper: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241), filed by Oscar Orlando Magana Guerra. Having considered the Petition of Oscar Orlando Magana Guerra ("Petitioner") for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, D. 1, and Respondents' opposition, D. 6, the Court ALLOWS the Petition to the following extent.Petitioner is a citizen of El Salvador who entered the United States without inspection in June 2016. D. 1 ¶¶ 15-16. He was arrested by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement on July 2, 2026, id. ¶ 4, and has been in custody at Plymouth County Correctional Facility since then, id. ¶ 5.Respondents maintain that Petitioner's detention is authorized by 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2), however, they also concede that the issues Petitioner raises are similar to those addressed by the Court in Dias de Carvalho v. Hyde, No. 25-cv-12677-DJC (D. Mass. Nov. 4, 2025), D. 14. D. 6 at 3. In Dias de Carvalho, the Court held that the arrest and detention of noncitizens within the United States is not governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) (which provides for mandatory detention of "applicants for admission") but is instead governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) (which allows fordiscretionary determinations of custody before an immigration judge). Id.; see Barbosa da Cunha v. Freden, 175 F.4th 61, 71 (2d Cir. 2026) (affirming that petitioner's detention "is governed by Section 1226 and that he is entitled to a bond hearing . . . consistent with the decisions of . . . over ninety percent of district court judges"). On the facts before it, the Court does not find reason to deviate from its prior rulings, including and not limited to Dias de Carvalho, and accordingly concludes that Petitioner is therefore not subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b). Given this ruling, the Court does not reach Respondents’ alternative argument regarding 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c), D. 6 at 4-6, which will be for the immigration judge to address. See Calel Cumes v. Moniz, No. 25-cv-12514-PBS, 2025 WL 3197637, at *2 (D. Mass. Oct. 6, 2025) (leaving the question of whether petitioner's criminal conviction triggered mandatory detention under § 1226(c) for the immigration judge to decide in the first instance).Accordingly, the Court ALLOWS the Petition, D. 1, insofar as it sought a bond hearing/individualized custody redetermination under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), at which the government bears the burden of proving Petitioner poses a danger to the community or flight risk, see Hernandez-Lara v. Lyons, 10 F.4th 19, 41 (1st Cir. 2021), which the Court ORDERS within seven (7) days of this Order. Respondents are also ENJOINED from denying Petitioner bond on the basis that he is detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). The Court further ORDERS Respondents to file a status report within ten (10) days of this Order stating whether Petitioner has been granted bond, and, if his request for bond was denied, the reasons for that denial.To the extent Petitioner requests relief that he shall not be transferred out of Massachusetts indefinitely, see D. 1 at 19, Petitioner's requested relief is DENIED. See Benito Vasquez v. Moniz, 788 F. Supp. 3d 177, 182 (D. Mass. 2025) (noting generally that "such requests are beyond the extent of habeas relief"). (SEC) (Entered: 08/10/2026)

Aug 10, 2026

Order

#8

Aug 20, 2026

Status Report