District of Massachusetts • 1:26-cv-14143

#1

Sep 09, 2026

PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) Filing fee: $ 5, receipt number AMADC-12020159 Fee status: Filing Fee paid., filed by Muhammed Ahmad. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of Attorney Matthew Gonnella, # 2 Civil Cover Sheet, # 3 Category Form, # 4 Index of Exhibits)(Gonnella, Matthew) (Additional attachment(s) added on 9/10/2026: # 5 Exhibit A, # 6 Exhibit B, # 7 Exhibit C, # 8 Exhibit D, # 9 Exhibit E, # 10 Exhibit F, # 11 Exhibit G) (MBM). Modified on 9/10/2026 to Separate Exhibits. (MBM). (Entered: 09/09/2026)

#2

Sep 10, 2026

ELECTRONIC NOTICE of Case Assignment. District Judge Leo T. Sorokin 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. (MAC) (Entered: 09/10/2026)

#3

Sep 10, 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). (SED) (Entered: 09/10/2026)

#4

Sep 10, 2026

District Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ORDER entered. ORDER CONCERNING SERVICE OF PETITION AND STAY OF TRANSFER OR REMOVAL (SED) (Entered: 09/10/2026)

#5

Sep 10, 2026

Copy re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241),, 4 Service Order - 2241 Petition emailed to Duty AUSA and mailed to Respondents and USAO on 9/10/2026. (SED) (Entered: 09/10/2026)

Sep 10, 2026

Copy Mailed

Sep 10, 2026

Notice of Case Assignment

#6

Sep 11, 2026

NOTICE of Appearance by Erica McMahon on behalf of Antone Moniz, United States Department of Homeland Security, David Wesling (McMahon, Erica) (Entered: 09/11/2026)

#7

Sep 18, 2026

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

#8

Sep 22, 2026

Response - not related to a motion

#9

Oct 06, 2026

District Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. Muhammad Faraz Ahmad, a national of Pakistan who entered the United States in 2022 on a B-2 visa, brings this petition for a writ of habeas corpus, contending that his present detention is unlawful because his August 17, 2026, bond hearing was constitutionally inadequate. Doc. No. 1. At this bond hearing, DHS relied on two domestic-violence arrests, both of which resulted in charges that had been dismissed prior to the August 17 bond hearing. Doc. No. 1-1 ¶ 7; Doc. No. 1-7 at 3; Doc. No. 1-8 at 2. Petitioner submitted a letter from his wife, the alleged victim of those incidents, who among other things averred Petitioner “did not harm [her] or cause [her] any injury” and that she “do[es] not consider him a danger to [her] or to [their] children.” Doc. No. 1-9 at 2; Doc. No. 1-10 at 4. He also submitted a legal memorandum, docket reports showing his charges had been dismissed, proof of employment and a residential lease, a “sponsor” letter from a U.S. citizen uncle, and several character letters from family and community members. See generally Doc. No. 1-10. The Immigration Judge presiding over the bond hearing received the parties’ evidence and arguments and held the matter under advisement, without giving a verbal explanation of its findings or rationale. Doc. No. 1-1 ¶ 7. One week later, the IJ issued a check-the-box order that stated: “The respondent is a danger to the community by clear and convincing evidence and there is no alternative to detention exists that would ensure the safety of the community.” Doc. No. 1-6 at 2. The IJ has not issued a written order explaining its reasoning as to danger or alternatives to detention. Petitioner timely appealed to the BIA and has re-submitted his appeal after correcting a technical mistake. See Doc. Nos. 1-11, 8-2. As the Court has repeatedly observed, “Adjudicating whether to detain or release another person is one of the most serious tasks judges are asked to perform. It requires conscientious review and consideration of all relevant and available information.” Quinonez Perez v. Wesling, No. 25-cv-13445-LTS, 2026 WL 2731085, at *4 (D. Mass. Sep. 16, 2026) (emphasis in original) (collecting cases). Here, the IJ has never explained, either verbally or in writing, its reasons for concluding that DHS had carried its burden to show petitioner was a danger to the community by clear and convincing evidence and that no alternatives to detention would ensure the community’s safety. The Constitution’s guarantee of due process guards against arbitrary detention, and a reasoned explanation is essential to ensure a detention decision is not “so arbitrary that it would offend fundamental tenets of due process.” Diaz Ortiz v. Smith, 384 F. Supp. 3d 140, 144 (D. Mass. 2019); see also Barnica-Lopez v. Garland, 59 F.4th 520, 530 (1st Cir. 2023) (explaining that although “an IJ... need not discuss ad nauseam every piece of evidence,” an IJ must at least “give[] reasoned consideration to the evidence as a whole, ma[k]e supportable findings, and adequately explain[] its reasoning” (citation modified)); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.19(f) (requiring that parties “be informed orally or in writing of the reasons for the [bond redetermination] decision” (emphasis added)); Quinonez Perez, 2026 WL 2731085, at *5 n.7 (observing that “not every person with a pending—let alone dismissed—criminal charge poses a danger to the community,” that “allegations of a domestic dispute do not necessarily and automatically render the petitioner a danger to the community writ large, or even to his family,” and that “the clear and convincing standard is a demanding one to satisfy” (citation modified)).The Court notes and rejects respondents’ argument that the petition should be dismissed because it does not name the EOIR as a respondent, Doc. No. 7 at 6; the habeas remedy runs against the petitioner’s immediate custodian, who is properly named in the petition. It also rejects the argument that 8 U.S.C. § 1226(e) strips it of jurisdiction to hear this constitutional challenge to the basis for petitioner’s present detention. Id.; see also, e.g., Almeida v. Moniz, No. 26-cv-12207-AK, 2026 WL 2806735, at *2 (D. Mass. Sep. 18, 2026). The Court agrees, however, that because the inadequate bond hearing was not held pursuant to a federal court order, and because petitioner has not shown remand would be futile, remand for a new bond hearing is the appropriate remedy in the first instance. See De Leon Garcia v. Blanche, No. 26-cv-12568-LTS (D. Mass. June 18, 2026), Dkt. No. 11. Accordingly, the petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1) is ALLOWED to the extent stated herein. Respondents SHALL RELEASE petition by October 14, 2026, UNLESS, before that time, they provide him with a bond hearing that complies with all constitutional requirements, including but not limited to the allocation of the burdens of proof specified by the First Circuit in Hernandez-Lara, consideration of alternatives to detention, and a reasoned explanation for the IJ’s bond determination. Respondents shall file a status report confirming compliance with this Order by October 20, 2026. Respondents shall not retaliate against petitioner, at the bond hearing or otherwise, for filing this petition. (SED) (Entered: 10/06/2026)

Oct 06, 2026

Order

#10

Oct 07, 2026

Judgment

#11

Oct 20, 2026

STATUS REPORT by Antone Moniz, United States Department of Homeland Security, David Wesling. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(McMahon, Erica) (Entered: 10/20/2026)

#12

Oct 21, 2026

District Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ORDER entered. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. The petitioner shall SHOW CAUSE by October 28, 2026, why his petition should not be dismissed as moot in light of the respondents' report that he has now received a bond hearing at which bond was granted. Doc. No. 11 .(FGD) (Entered: 10/21/2026)

Oct 21, 2026

Order To Show Cause

#13

Oct 29, 2026

District Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. In light of the Court’s prior order allowing the petition and the entry of judgment, Doc. Nos. 9, 10, the show-cause order, Doc. No. 12, is discharged. The Clerk is directed to close this case.(FGD) (Entered: 10/29/2026)

Oct 29, 2026

Order