District of Massachusetts • 1:26-cv-14082

#1

Sep 04, 2026

PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241), filed by Juan Miguel Mejia Artica. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Supplement, # 3 Attachment)(CEW) (Entered: 09/04/2026)

#2

Sep 04, 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 Jennifer C. Boal. (MBM) (Entered: 09/04/2026)

#3

Sep 04, 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: 09/04/2026)

#4

Sep 04, 2026

District Judge Angel Kelley: ORDER entered. Standing Order Regarding Motion Practice. (CEH) (Entered: 09/04/2026)

#5

Sep 04, 2026

District Judge Angel Kelley: ORDER entered. Order Concerning Service of Petition, Stay of Transfer or Removal, and Required Response. (CEH) (Entered: 09/04/2026)

#6

Sep 04, 2026

Copy re 5 Service Order - 2241 Petition, 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) emailed to AUSA Alexandra Brazier, Rayford Farquhar, and USAMA Civil Process on 9/4/2026 at 1:32 pm and mailed to all respondents (CEH) (Entered: 09/04/2026)

#7

Sep 04, 2026

Copy re 4 Order, 5 Service Order - 2241 Petition mailed to Juan Miguel Mejia Artica on 9/4/2026. (CEH) (Entered: 09/04/2026)

Sep 04, 2026

Notice of Case Assignment

Sep 04, 2026

Copy Mailed

#8

Sep 08, 2026

Filing fee/payment: $5.00, receipt number 100016549 for 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) (LBO) (Entered: 09/08/2026)

Sep 08, 2026

Filing Fee/Payment Received

#9

Sep 10, 2026

NOTICE of Appearance by Vincent Engingro, III on behalf of Todd Blanche, Todd Lyons, Antone Moniz, Markwayne Mullin, David T. Wesling (Engingro, Vincent) (Entered: 09/10/2026)

#10

Sep 10, 2026

RESPONSE/ANSWER to Petitioner's 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) by Todd Blanche, Todd Lyons, Antone Moniz, Markwayne Mullin, David T. Wesling. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3)(Engingro, Vincent) (Entered: 09/10/2026)

#11

Sep 16, 2026

District Judge Angel Kelley: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. Before the Court is Petitioner's Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus [Dkt. 1], filed on September 4, 2026, which seeks release from immigration detention or, in the alternative, a new bond hearing. Petitioner contends that he did not receive a constitutionally adequate bond hearing because the Immigration Judge's July 15, 2026, finding that he is a flight risk was not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. [Dkt. 1].Respondents filed their Response on September 10, 2026, and state that the Petition omits material procedural history. [Dkt. 10 at 1]. Petitioner previously sought habeas relief in this Court, and that petition resulted in an order directing a bond hearing. [Dkt. 10 at 1]; see No. 1:26-CV-10598-NMG. The Immigration Court held that hearing on February 19, 2026, and denied bond after finding Petitioner a flight risk; Petitioner's appeal of that ruling remains pending before the Board of Immigration Appeals. [Dkt. 10 at 2]. Petitioner then filed a request for custody redetermination, withdrew it in April 2026, and filed a second request. [Id.]. Finding changed circumstances, the Immigration Court held a second bond hearing on July 15, 2026, and again denied bond on flight-risk grounds. [Id.]. Petitioner did not appeal that decision. [Id.].Congress has sharply constrained judicial review of immigration custody decisions. 8 U.S.C. Section 1226(e) provides that the Attorney General's "discretionary judgment regarding the application of this section shall not be subject to review." 8 U.S.C. § 1226(e). Courts in this district including this Court, have accordingly described their review of an Immigration Judge's custody determination as "limited," Diaz Ortiz v. Smith, 384 F. Supp. 3d 140, 143 (D. Mass. 2019), and have recognized that "[c]ongress has eliminated judicial review of discretionary custody determinations," Pensamiento v. McDonald, 315 F. Supp. 3d 684, 688 (D. Mass. 2018). What remains open to habeas review is whether the Immigration Judge applied the correct legal standard, not whether this Court would have weighed the evidence differently. Diaz Ortiz, 384 F. Supp. 3d at 143; see also Diaz-Calderon v. Barr, 535 F. Supp. 3d 669, 676 (E.D. Mich. 2020) ("[A] district court sitting in habeas [] review... has no authority to encroach upon an IJ's discretionary weighing of the evidence." (quoting Arellano v. Sessions, No. 6:18-CV-06625-MAT, 2019 WL 3387210, at *7 (W.D.N.Y. July 26, 2019)).Here, the record reflects that the Immigration Judge identified and applied the burden of proof and weighed the relevant factors in finding Petitioner a flight risk. [Dkt. 10-3 at 3-4]; see Hernandez-Lara v. Lyons, 10 F.4th 19 (1st Cir. 2021). The Immigration Judge relied on Petitioner's more than twenty restraining orders, several outstanding warrants, his defaults, and the absence of any apparent avenue of immigration relief. [Dkt. 10-3 at 4]. Petitioner's disagreement with that assessment is, in substance, a request that this Court reweigh the same evidence, which it may not do. See Arellano, 2019 WL 3387210, at *7.Petitioner has received two bond hearings, and he has not shown that the Immigration Judge applied an incorrect constitutional standard at either one. For these reasons, Petitioner's Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus [Dkt. 1] is DENIED.(CEH) (Entered: 09/16/2026)

#12

Sep 16, 2026

District Judge Angel Kelley: ORDER entered. ORDER CLOSING CASE (CEH) (Entered: 09/16/2026)

#13

Sep 16, 2026

Copy re 12 Order Dismissing Case, 11 Order, mailed to Juan Miguel Mejia Artica on 9/16/2026. (CEH) (Entered: 09/16/2026)

Sep 16, 2026

Copy Mailed

Sep 16, 2026

Order