District of Massachusetts • 1:26-cv-13759

#1

Aug 14, 2026

PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) Filing fee: $ 5, receipt number AMADC-11960909 Fee status: Filing Fee paid., filed by Leonardo Blanco-Quintana. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Category Form) (Joyce, William). (Entered: 08/14/2026)

#2

Aug 14, 2026

ELECTRONIC NOTICE of Case Assignment. District Judge Angel Kelley 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. (CAM) (Entered: 08/14/2026)

#3

Aug 14, 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). (CEH) (Entered: 08/14/2026)

#4

Aug 14, 2026

District Judge Angel Kelley: ORDER entered. Order Concerning Service of Petition, Stay of Transfer or Removal, and Required Response. (CEH) (Entered: 08/14/2026)

#5

Aug 14, 2026

District Judge Angel Kelley: ORDER entered. Standing Order Regarding Motion Practice. (CEH) (Entered: 08/14/2026)

#6

Aug 14, 2026

Copy re 4 Service Order - 2241 Petition, 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) emailed to AUSA Julien Mundele, Rayford Farquhar, and USAMA Civil Process on 8/14/2026 AT 2:29 pm and mailed to all respondents (CEH) (Entered: 08/14/2026)

Aug 14, 2026

Notice of Case Assignment

Aug 14, 2026

Copy Mailed

#7

Aug 19, 2026

Notice of Appearance

#8

Aug 19, 2026

Extension of Time to File Response/Reply

Aug 20, 2026

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

#10

Sep 18, 2026

District Judge Angel Kelley: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. Before the Court is Petitioner Leonardo Blanco-Quintana’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. [Dkt. 1]. Petitioner challenges his detention by Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”), arguing that Respondents lack statutory authority to detain him under the Immigration and Nationality Act. On August 20, 2026, this Court granted Respondents an extension of time until August 26, 2026, to file a response. [Dkt. 9]. To date, Respondents have neither filed a response nor requested an extension to do so. Thus, the Court proceeds to assess the Petition on the existing record. Based on this review, the Petition is GRANTED.The relevant facts are as follows. Petitioner entered the United States in 1980 as a refugee from Cuba. In 1992, Petition received an order of exclusion (an older type of immigration order akin to a final order of removal), but the Government failed to remove him during the prescribed removal period. As a result, in 2011, Petitioner was issued an order of supervision. Fifteen years later, on July 15, 2026, ICE arrested Petitioner for allegedly driving with a suspended license and re-detained him. Respondents did not provide Petitioner with specific allegations underlying the revocation of supervision, afford him an initial interview after return to custody, nor provide reasons or a statutory basis of authority for his detention. Petitioner believes that the basis for authority is 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a). In the absence of a response from the Government, the Court accepts as true that the statutory authority relied on by Respondents is, as Petitioner represents, 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a). This Court—along with numerous other courts in this circuit—has explained that 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a) authorizes the re-detention of a noncitizen after he is released on an order of supervision only if the government “provide[s] specific facts supporting ‘(1) an individualized determination (2) by ICE that, (3) based on changed circumstances, (4) removal has become significantly likely in the reasonably foreseeable future.’” Huynh v. Wesling, No. 25-CV-13794, 2026 WL 183467, at *2 (D. Mass. Jan. 23, 2026) (quoting Kong v. United States, 62 F.4th 608, 619-20 (1st Cir. 2023)); e.g., De Rodriquez v. Hyde, No. 25-CV-13210, 2026 WL 220416 (D. Mass. Jan. 28, 2026); Gomes-Afonseca v. Lyons, No. 26-CV-10215, 2026 WL 538167 (D. Mass. Feb. 26, 2026); Nguyen v. Hyde, 788 F. Supp. 3d 144 (D. Mass. 2025), Vo v. Lyons, No. 25-CV-533, 2026 WL 323133 (D.N.H. Jan. 27, 2026); Munagi v. McDonald, 813 F. Supp. 3d 225 (D. Mass. 2025); Nguyen v. Moniz, No. 26-CV-10741, 2026 WL 539181 (D. Mass. Feb. 26, 2026). Here, Petitioner represents that Respondents did not notify him of specific reasons or allegations for revocation or afford him an initial interview or opportunity to respond. Nor has the Government responded to the Petition, despite an extension of time to do so. This falls short of the required showing of changed circumstances justifying re-detention. Thus, the Government has not established its authority to detain Petitioner.Accordingly, the Petition is GRANTED. Respondents are ORDERED to immediately release Petitioner.(CEH) (Entered: 09/18/2026)

Sep 18, 2026

Order

#11

Sep 28, 2026

Order Dismissing Case