District of Massachusetts • 1:26-cv-13368

#1

Jul 22, 2026

PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) Filing fee: $ 5, receipt number AMADC-11907869 Fee status: Filing Fee paid., filed by Renato Ribeiro Dos Santos. (Attachments: # 1 Category Form, # 2 Civil Cover Sheet, # 3 Exhibit) (Kravitz, Daniel) Modified on 7/23/2026 (NVB). (Entered: 07/22/2026)

#2

Jul 22, 2026

District Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ORDER entered. EMERGENCY ORDER CONCERNING STAY OF TRANSFER OR REMOVAL. (PK) (Entered: 07/22/2026)

#3

Jul 23, 2026

ELECTRONIC NOTICE of Case Assignment. District Judge Patti B. Saris 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 Donald L. Cabell. (MBM) (Entered: 07/23/2026)

#4

Jul 23, 2026

District Judge Patti B. Saris: ORDER entered. SERVICE ORDER re 2241 Petition. Order entered pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2243 governing Section 2241 cases for service on respondents. The answer or responsive pleading is due no later than July 28, 2026.(LP) (Entered: 07/23/2026)

#5

Jul 23, 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). (LP) (Entered: 07/23/2026)

#6

Jul 23, 2026

Copy re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241), 4 Service Order - 2241 Petition, mailed to Respondents on 7/23/2026. (CGK) (Entered: 07/23/2026)

Jul 23, 2026

Notice of Case Assignment

Jul 23, 2026

Copy Mailed

#7

Jul 24, 2026

Notice of Appearance

#8

Jul 29, 2026

District Judge Patti B. Saris: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241), filed by Renato Ribeiro Dos Santos. Petitioner Renato Ribeiro Dos Santos ("Petitioner") has filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to challenge his immigration detention without a bond hearing. On July 23, 2026, this Court ordered the government to answer or otherwise respond to the petition by July 28, 2026. See Dkt. 4 at 1-2. That deadline has passed, and no answer or responsive pleading has been filed.Given the government's failure to respond, the Court ALLOWS the habeas petition (Dkt. 1 ) and ORDERS that the government release Petitioner unless he is provided with a bond hearing that complies with the standards outlined in Hernandez-Lara v. Lyons, 10 F.4th 19 (1st Cir. 2021), within seven business days of the date of this order. No later than fourteen days from the date of this order, the government shall file a status report confirming that Petitioner has received a bond hearing (or has been released in lieu of a bond hearing) and stating the outcome of the bond hearing. (BL) (Entered: 07/29/2026)

#9

Jul 29, 2026

SET DEADLINES as to: STATUS REPORT due by 8/12/2026. (BL) (Entered: 07/29/2026)

Jul 29, 2026

Order

#10

Aug 05, 2026

Status Report

#11

Aug 13, 2026

Status Report

#12

Aug 24, 2026

NOTICE by Todd Blanche, Patricia Hyde, Michael Krol, Antone Moniz, Markwayne Mullin re 4 Service Order - 2241 Petition, of Intent to Remove (Tolkoff, Benjamin) (Entered: 08/24/2026)

#13

Aug 24, 2026

NOTICE by Renato Ribeiro Dos Santos Objection to notice of Respondents Intent to Transfer (Kravitz, Daniel) (Entered: 08/24/2026)

#14

Aug 25, 2026

District Judge Patti B. Saris: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. Respondents have filed a notice of intent to transfer Petitioner from the District of Massachusetts in order "to effectuate his removal from the United States." Dkt. 12 at 1. In response, Petitioner asserts that Respondents have "failed to provide any evidence that [he] is subject to removal from the United States" and that he has a pending asylum application. Dkt. 13 at 2. By 12:00 p.m. on Wednesday, August 26, 2026, Respondents shall submit documentation reflecting the status of Petitioner's asylum application and demonstrating that he is subject to a final removal order.(LP) (Entered: 08/25/2026)

Aug 25, 2026

Order

#15

Aug 26, 2026

MOTION for Order to Enforce Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus ( Responses due by 9/9/2026) by Renato Ribeiro Dos Santos. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Kravitz, Daniel) Modified on 8/26/2026: Corrected docketing event and removed duplicate text. (FGD) (Entered: 08/26/2026)

#16

Aug 26, 2026

NOTICE of Appearance by Rayford A. Farquhar on behalf of Todd Blanche, Patricia Hyde, Michael Krol, Antone Moniz, Markwayne Mullin (Farquhar, Rayford) (Entered: 08/26/2026)

#17

Aug 26, 2026

STATUS REPORT by Todd Blanche, Patricia Hyde, Michael Krol, Antone Moniz, Markwayne Mullin. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Farquhar, Rayford) (Entered: 08/26/2026)

#18

Aug 26, 2026

STATUS REPORT by Renato Ribeiro Dos Santos. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Kravitz, Daniel) (Entered: 08/26/2026)

#19

Aug 26, 2026

District Judge Patti B. Saris: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. The government shall respond to Petitioner's motion to enforce (Dkt. 15) no later than September 9, 2026. With its response, the government shall submit a transcript and/or audio recording of the bond hearing and copies of any evidence submitted to the immigration court in connection with that hearing. Until the Court resolves the motion to enforce, the government shall not transfer Petitioner from the District of Massachusetts or remove him from the United States.(LP) (Entered: 08/26/2026)

Aug 26, 2026

Order

#20

Aug 27, 2026

Notice of Appearance

#21

Sep 09, 2026

Response to Motion

#22

Sep 09, 2026

Notice of Manual Filing

#23

Sep 14, 2026

REPLY to Response to 15 MOTION to Enforce Judgment filed by Renato Ribeiro Dos Santos. (Kravitz, Daniel) (Entered: 09/14/2026)

#24

Sep 16, 2026

District Judge Patti B. Saris: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered re 15 MOTION to Enforce Judgment filed by Renato Ribeiro Dos Santos. Petitioner Renato Ribeiro Dos Santos ("Petitioner") filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to challenge the lawfulness of his immigration detention. The Court previously ordered Respondents to provide Petitioner with a bond hearing in immigration court that complies with the due process standards outlined in Hernandez-Lara v. Lyons, 10 F.4th 19 (1st Cir. 2021). After the hearing, the immigration judge denied Petitioner's request for release on bond due to flight risk. Petitioner now moves to enforce this Courts order, contending that Respondents failed to provide a constitutionally adequate bond hearing. As an initial matter, as this Court has previously held, a noncitizen "need not exhaust an appeal to the" Board of Immigration Appeals before bringing a due process challenge of this sort "given the irreparable harm caused by [the] allegedly unlawful and ongoing detention." Cuzco Ganzhi v. Moniz, No. 26-cv-11478, 2026 WL 1194941, at *1 (D. Mass. May 1, 2026) (collecting cases). The Court's authority in reviewing Petitioner's due process challenge, however, "is limited." Diaz Ortiz v. Smith, 384 F. Supp. 3d 140, 143 (D. Mass. 2019). A noncitizen must "either point to the language of the immigration judge's" ruling indicating he applied the wrong standard of proof "or demonstrate that 'the evidence itself could not -- as a matter of law -- have supported' the immigration judges decision to deny bond." Id. (quoting Hechavarria v. Whitaker, 358 F. Supp. 3d 227, 240 (W.D.N.Y. 2019)); see Miti v. Moniz, 827 F. Supp. 3d 206, 217 (D. Mass. 2026), appeal filed, No. 26-1655 (1st Cir. June 1, 2026).At the bond hearing, the immigration judge found by a preponderance of the evidence that Petitioner posed a flight risk and concluded that no amount of bond or alternative to detention would adequately mitigate that risk. The immigration judge applied the correct standard, addressed several pieces of evidence, and concluded that the government had met its burden of showing Petitioner was a flight risk. See Reyes Vargas v. Warden, Plymouth Cnty. Corr. Facility, No. 26-cv-11740, 2026 WL 1453510, at *6 (D. Mass. May 22, 2026) (listing the nine factors set out in Matter of Guerra, 24 I. & N. Dec. 37 (B.I.A. 2006), that an immigration judge may consider in determining whether a noncitizen poses a flight risk). In finding Petitioner a flight risk, the immigration judge relied on his re-entering the United States after an order of removal and his fleeing from immigration officials. The Court finds the evidence was sufficient to make this finding. The Court therefore cannot conclude that the immigration judge's determination that Petitioner is a flight risk was so arbitrary as to offend due process. Accordingly, Petitioners motion to enforce (Dkt. 15 ) is DENIED. The Court further VACATES its orders prohibiting or limiting Petitioner's transfer from the District of Massachusetts or removal from the United States. (Dkts. 4, 19 ).(BEL) (Entered: 09/16/2026)

Sep 16, 2026

Order

#25

Sep 18, 2026

Judgment