District of Massachusetts • 1:26-cv-12437

#1

May 29, 2026

Emergency PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) Filing fee: $ 5, receipt number AMADC-11777692 Fee status: Filing Fee paid., filed by Juan Camilo Navarrete Pico. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Category Form)(Cerretani, Gabriela) (Entered: 05/29/2026)

#2

Jun 01, 2026

ELECTRONIC NOTICE of Case Assignment. Chief District Judge Denise J. Casper 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. (CM) (Entered: 06/01/2026)

#3

Jun 01, 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). (EZG) (Entered: 06/01/2026)

#4

Jun 01, 2026

Chief District Judge Denise J. Casper: ORDER entered. ORDER CONCERNING SERVICE OF PETITION AND STAY OF TRANSFER OR REMOVAL. (EZG) (Entered: 06/01/2026)

Jun 01, 2026

Notice of Case Assignment

#5

Jun 03, 2026

Notice of Appearance

#6

Jun 03, 2026

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

#7

Jun 24, 2026

Amended Complaint AND Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus - 2241

#8

Jul 14, 2026

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

#9

Jul 17, 2026

Chief District Judge Denise J. Casper: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241), filed by Juan Camilo Navarrete Pico. Having reviewed the amended petition for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (the "Petition") filed by Petitioner Juan Camilo Navarrete Pico ("Petitioner"), D. 7, Respondents' response to same, D. 8, and the exhibits appended by both parties, including the audio file of Petitioner's bond hearing, D. 8-1, the Court ALLOWS the Petition to the following extent.Factual Background. Petitioner is a native and citizen of Colombia. D. 7 ¶ 1. He most recently entered the United States as a B-2 visitor in August 2017 and has since resided continuously in this country. Id. ¶ 11. On May 29, 2026, Petitioner was detained by a local sheriff's deputy following an off-duty officer's report that he had observed a man attempting to entice a young girl toward a van with money and there was a white powder folded in a five-dollar bill that Petitioner allegedly admitted was cocaine. Id. ¶¶ 13-14. No criminal charges have been brought against Petitioner. He has since been detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE"). Id. ¶ 15.On June 15, 2026, Petitioner had a bond hearing in immigration court, where the government submitted as evidence a Form I-213 and a Form I-94, D. 7 ¶ 17; D. 7-1 at 1. The Form I-213 included the off-duty officer's report, D. 7 ¶¶ 13, 17-18, D. 7 ¶¶ 14, 18. No criminal charges have been filed against Petitioner. Id. ¶ 18. For his part, Petitioner submitted evidence of his residence, his two U.S. citizen children, his U.S. citizen sponsor, his proof of business registration, his federal income tax returns for 2020 through 2025 and letters of support. Id. ¶ 19. The immigration judge (the "IJ") ultimately denied bond on dangerousness, finding by clear and convincing evidence that Petitioner was a danger to the community and that there was no alternative to his detention that would ensure the safety of the community. Id. ¶ 20; D. 7-2 at 1.Petitioner contends that both the IJ's reliance upon an uncorroborated Form I-213, D. 7 ¶¶ 22-24, and her failure to consider any alternative to detention, id. ¶¶ 25-27, constitute a violation of his Fifth Amendment due process rights. He seeks his immediate release or a new bond hearing. Id. at 8.Discussion. This Court has jurisdiction over the Petition as it concerns relief that Petitioner seeks challenging his continued detention. Kong v. United States, 62 F.4th 608, 614 (1st Cir. 2023) (noting that "we have held that district courts retain jurisdiction over challenges to the legality of detention in the immigration context"). 1. Exhaustion. As a preliminary matter, Respondents argue that the Court should deny the Petition for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. D. 8 at 2-4. "In line with the weight of the caselaw among district courts in this circuit, [however,] the Court holds that Petitioner need not exhaust an appeal to the BIA on his due process challenge given the irreparable harm caused by his allegedly unlawful and ongoing detention." Ganzhi v. Moniz, No. 26-cv-11478-PBS, 2026 WL 1194941, at *1 (D. Mass. May 1, 2026) (collecting cases). The Court, therefore, proceeds to the merits of Petitioner's challenge."Although the Court may not merely ‘override’ the immigration judge’s [dangerousness] determination," Vaca Espinoza v. Moniz et al., No. 26-cv-11472-DJC, D. 15 (D. Mass. June 17, 2026) (quoting Hernandez-Azuaje v. Hyde, No. 25-cv-13224-ADB, 2026 WL 221833, at *1 (D. Mass. Jan. 28, 2026)), it must determine if she "properly allocate[d] the burden of proof in compliance with Hernandez-Lara." Id.; see Akinsanya v. Garland, 125 F.4th 287, 297 (1st Cir. 2025) (noting that “[m]erely stating the proper standard does not discharge the obligation to correctly apply the standard”). First, an IJ's consideration of a Form I-213 "is not," as a matter of law, "inherently improper." España v. Nessinger, No. 26-cv-014-JJM-PAS, 2026 WL 821788, at *10 (D.R.I. Mar. 25, 2026). Even putting aside whether an immigration judge may rely solely upon a Form I-213 for its findings of dangerousness, here there is insufficient showing that dangerousness was shown by clear and convincing evidence, particularly where the circumstances of the interactions with child were disputed, there was no investigation regarding same and no criminal charges regarding this allegation or those about any possession of cocaine have been brought. Moreover, the circumstances here are distinct from those involving petitioners with prior criminal records and pending, criminal charges. Cf. Pacas v. Wesling et al., No. 26-cv-10591-LTS (D. Mass. Apr. 30, 2026), D. 17 (denying challenge to bond hearing where IJ relied upon, inter alia, a report by immigration officers, petitioner's state probation record, police reports and docket information); Orozco Mazariegos v. Moniz et al., No. 26-cv-10902-DJC (D. Mass. Apr. 17, 2026), D. 15 (denying challenge to bond hearing where IJ relied upon police report and existence of pending charge); Hernandez-Azuaje v. Hyde, No. 25-cv-13224-ADB, 2026 WL 221833, at *2 (D. Mass. Jan. 28, 2026) (denying challenge to bond hearing where IJ relied upon petitioner's criminal history and an arrest report reflecting criminal charges). Moreover, the recording of the bond hearing indicates that the immigration judge failed to engage with any of Petitioner’s evidence that bore upon the risk of dangerousness, including the absence of a criminal record over nearly nine years in the United States, letters of support regarding his character or his dispute about the nature of interaction with child as alleged in the Form I-213 that did not result in any criminal charges (although both local police and Homeland Security were contacted and declined to bring any). D. 7 ¶¶ 18-19.Accordingly, the Court finds that Respondents did not meet their burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that Petitioner posed a danger to the community, D. 8-1; see Higiro, 2026 WL 1329522, at *6. The Court, therefore, ALLOWS the Petition, D. 7, insofar as it ORDERS that Petitioner be provided with another bond hearing within seven (7) days of this Order in which the immigration judge complies with the due process requirements elucidated in Hernandez-Lara v. Lyons, 10 F.4th 19 (1st Cir. 2021) and makes specific findings based upon the entirety of the record that the standard of clear and convincing evidence has or has not been met. The Court further ORDERS Respondents to file a status report within ten (10) days of this Order stating whether Petitioner has been granted bond and, if his request for bond was denied, the reasons for that denial.(SEC) (Entered: 07/17/2026)

Jul 17, 2026

Order

#10

Jul 27, 2026

Status Report

#11

Jul 29, 2026

Status Report

#13

Jul 31, 2026

Order Dismissing Case

Jul 31, 2026

Order