District of Massachusetts • 1:26-cv-13146

#1

Jul 08, 2026

Emergency PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) Filing fee: $ 5, receipt number AMADC-11874104 Fee status: Filing Fee paid., filed by Emre Sariaydin. (Attachments: # 1 Category Form, # 2 Civil Cover, # 3 Exhibit A) (Binnall, Jacob) Modified on 7/9/2026 (EZG). (Attachment 3 replaced on 7/9/2026) (EZG). (Additional attachment(s) added on 7/9/2026: # 4 Exhibit B, # 5 Exhibit C), # 6 Exhibit D) (EZG). Modified on 7/9/2026: to separate exhibits and add as individual attachments - NEF regenerated (EZG). (Entered: 07/08/2026)

#2

Jul 09, 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. (SP) (Entered: 07/09/2026)

#3

Jul 09, 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 July 20, 2026. (CAM) (Entered: 07/09/2026)

#4

Jul 09, 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: 07/09/2026)

Jul 09, 2026

Notice of Case Assignment

#5

Jul 10, 2026

Temporary Restraining Order

#6

Jul 10, 2026

Notice of Appearance

#7

Jul 16, 2026

Judge Allison D. Burroughs: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. The Court is in receipt of Petitioner's emergency motion for a temporary restraining order. [ECF No. 5 ]. Respondents are ordered to both file a copy of the transcript of Petitioner's May 28, 2026 bond hearing and respond to Petitioner's motion for a temporary restraining order, [ECF No. 5 ], by July 20, 2026. (CAM) (Entered: 07/16/2026)

Jul 16, 2026

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

#8

Jul 20, 2026

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

#9

Aug 06, 2026

Judge Allison D. Burroughs: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. On May 21, 2026, the Court ordered Respondents to provide Petitioner, Emre Sariaydin, with a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). Sariaydin v. Mullin, No. 26-cv-12128, Dkt. No. 7 (D. Mass. May 21, 2026). On May 28, 2026, Immigration Judge Luciana Dubuc denied Petitioner release on bond, finding that he was a flight risk. [ECF No. 1 ¶ 6]. On July 8, 2026, Petitioner filed another petition for writ of habeas corpus arguing that he has not received a constitutionally adequate bond hearing despite the Court’s order stating that he is entitled to one. [Id. ¶¶ 6, 15]. On July 10, 2026, Petitioner also filed a motion for a temporary restraining order requesting that the Court order his release from custody pending final adjudication of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. [ECF No. 5 ].This Court has jurisdiction to review whether the bond hearing it ordered comported with constitutionally mandated burdens of proof. See, e.g., Massingue v. Streeter, No. 19-cv-30159, 2020 WL 1866255, at *3 (D. Mass. Apr. 14, 2020) (“[A] district court retains jurisdiction to review compliance with its earlier order conditionally granting habeas relief.” (quoting Diaz Ortiz v. Smith, 384 F. Supp. 3d 140, 142 (D. Mass. 2019))); Hernandez-Lara v. Lyons, 10 F.4th 19, 33 (1st Cir. 2021) (noting that 8 U.S.C. § 1226(e) does not preclude challenges to “the extent of the Government’s detention authority under the ‘statutory framework’ as a whole” (quoting Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281, 295 (2018))). Specifically, the First Circuit has held that the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause requires that the government prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that a noncitizen is a flight risk before a noncitizen may be denied release on bond on that basis. Hernandez-Lara, 10 F.4th at 41. To show that an immigration judge failed to apply this standard, a noncitizen must either “point to the language of the immigration judge’s opinion or demonstrate that ‘the evidence itself could not—as a matter of law—have supported’ the immigration judge’s decision to deny bond.” Diaz Ortiz, 384 F. Supp. 3d at 143 (quoting Hechavarria v. Whitaker, 358 F. Supp. 3d 227, 240 (W.D.N.Y. 2019)). The Court’s review in this context is extraordinarily limited: Habeas relief is appropriate only if the immigration judge’s “exercise of discretion in denying bond was so arbitrary that it would offend fundamental tenets of due process.” Id. at 144 (quoting Pratt v. Doll, No. 17-cv-01020, 2019 WL 722578, at *4 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 20, 2019)).At the hearing, the immigration judge denied bond based on evidence that Petitioner had missed two check-ins with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) and had resisted arrest when taken into custody in May 2026. [ECF No. 8-1 (noting that the Form I-213 does not indicate that there was any procedural error with respect to the ICE check-in notifications and that ICE agents identified themselves as they approached Petitioner’s vehicle before attempting to apprehend him on May 1, 2026)]. Based on these circumstances, the immigration judge found based on the preponderance of the evidence that Petitioner constituted a flight risk and that no bond amount or alternatives to detention would ameliorate that risk. [Id.]. Here, based on the Court’s review of the evidence before the immigration judge and the unofficial audio recording of the hearing, see [ECF No. 8-1], the immigration judge’s decision satisfied the minimum requirements of due process.Accordingly, Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus, [ECF No. 1 ], and motion for a temporary restraining order, [ECF No. 5 ], are hereby DENIED. (CAM) (Entered: 08/06/2026)

#10

Aug 06, 2026

Judge Allison D. Burroughs: ORDER entered. ORDER DISMISSING CASE. (CAM) (Entered: 08/06/2026)

Aug 06, 2026

Order on Motion for TRO

Aug 06, 2026

Order Dismissing Case