District of Massachusetts • 1:26-cv-12617

#1

Jun 09, 2026

PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241), filed by Prince Atel.(MAP) (Entered: 06/09/2026)

#2

Jun 09, 2026

ELECTRONIC NOTICE of Case Assignment. Judge Allison D. Burroughs 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 Paul G. Levenson. (LBO) (Entered: 06/09/2026)

#3

Jun 09, 2026

Judge Allison D. Burroughs: ORDER entered. Order Concerning Service of Petition and Stay of Transfer or Removal. The answer or responsive pleading is due no later than June 23, 2026.(CAM) (Entered: 06/09/2026)

Jun 09, 2026

Notice of Case Assignment

#4

Jun 10, 2026

Copy re 3 Service Order - 2241 Petition, 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) emailed to Duty AUSA Benjamin 6/9/2026 and mailed to Respondents on 6/10/2026. (CAM) (Entered: 06/10/2026)

Jun 10, 2026

Copy Mailed

#5

Jun 11, 2026

Notice of Appearance

#6

Jun 16, 2026

Filing fee/payment: $ 5.00, receipt number 100015713 for 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) (NVB) (Entered: 06/16/2026)

Jun 16, 2026

Filing Fee/Payment Received

#7

Jun 23, 2026

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

#8

Jul 10, 2026

Judge Allison D. Burroughs: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. Currently before the Court is Petitioner Atel Prince’s petition for writ of habeas corpus. [ECF No. 1 ]. Petitioner is a native of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, [id. ¶ 14], and is subject to an order of removal, which he is currently appealing to the Board of Immigration Appeals, [id. ¶¶ 25-26]. Petitioner entered the United States in November 2019 and was paroled into the country. [Id. ¶ 16]. Around July 2025, Petitioner was detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) after serving a three-month sentence for resisting arrest after a domestic incident. [Id. ¶¶ 18, 20]. On December 21, 2025, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus (the “First Petition”), see Atel v. Hyde, No. 25-cv-13926, ECF No. 1 (D. Mass. Dec. 21, 2025), and on December 29, 2026, another session of this Court allowed the First Petition and ordered that Petitioner receive a bond hearing, Atel v. Hyde, No. 25-cv-13926, ECF No. 6 (D. Mass. Dec. 29, 2025). On January 27, 2026, Petitioner received a bond hearing but was denied bond based on a finding that he posed a danger to the community by clear and convincing evidence. Atel v. Hyde, No. 25-cv-13926, ECF No. 10 (D. Mass. Feb. 20, 2026). Petitioner has not appealed his bond denial to the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) or requested a new bond hearing due to changed circumstances. [ECF No. 7 at 2].On June 9, 2026, Petitioner filed a second petition for writ of habeas corpus (the “Second Petition”), [ECF No. 1 ], in which he contends that he is detained unconstitutionally. [ECF No. 1 at 6]. Specifically, he asserts again, like he did in his First Petition, that Respondents misclassified his detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225 rather than § 1226, and that he should receive a bond hearing or be released. [Id. ¶¶ 36–40]. Respondents contend that this Court lacks jurisdiction to overturn the Immigration Court’s detention order, [ECF No. 7 at 3], and that Petitioner has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies by appealing the Immigration Judge’s decision to deny release on bond, [id. at 4]. With respect to Petitioner’s argument that he is being held pursuant to § 1226 and, therefore, is entitled to a bond hearing, Petitioner has already been granted relief his requested relief in the form of a bond hearing on January 27, 2026. See Atel v. Hyde, No. 25-cv-13926, ECF No. 10 (D. Mass. Feb. 20, 2026). Although Petitioner does not directly challenge the sufficiency or constitutionality of the bond hearing he received, for the avoidance of doubt, the Court will briefly address the issue. District courts in the First Circuit have reviewed immigration judges’ bond determinations for compliance with the constitutionally mandated burden of proof. See, e.g., Garcia v. Hyde, No. 25-cv-00585, 2025 WL 3466312, at *5, *12 (D.R.I. Dec. 3, 2025) (granting habeas relief); Mayancela Mayancela v. FCI Berlin, No. 25-cv-00348, 2025 WL 3215638, at *67 (D.N.H. Nov. 18, 2025) (denying habeas relief); Dos Reis v. Vitello, No. 25-cv-10497, 2025 WL 1043434, at *2–3 (D. Mass. Apr. 8, 2025) (denying habeas relief). To show that an immigration judge failed to apply the correct standard, a noncitizen must either “point to the language of the immigration judge’s opinion or demonstrate that ‘the evidence itself could not—as a matter of law—have supported’ the immigration judge’s decision to deny bond.” Diaz Ortiz, 384 F. Supp. 3d at 143 (quoting Hechavarria v. Whitaker, 358 F. Supp. 3d 227, 240 (W.D.N.Y. 2019)). Given the highly circumscribed nature of judicial review in this context, courts cannot override an immigration judge’s bond decision simply because they “might have reached a different result if considering the issue de novo or in the context of a bail review in a criminal case.” Massingue v. Streeter, No. 19-cv-30159, 2020 WL 1866255, at *5 (D. Mass. Apr. 14, 2020). Rather, habeas relief is appropriate only if the immigration judge’s “exercise of discretion in denying bond was so arbitrary that it would offend fundamental tenets of due process.” Diaz Ortiz v. Smith, 384 F. Supp. 3d 140, 144 (D. Mass. 2019) (quoting Pratt v. Doll, No. 17-cv-01020, 2019 WL 722578, at *4 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 20, 2019)). Here, Petitioner does not contend that the immigration judge’s exercise of discretion was so arbitrary that it would offend fundamental tenets of due process, see generally [ECF No. 1], and taking into consideration the evidence of Petitioner’s recent criminal history that was submitted to the Immigration Judge, [ECF No. 7-2], the Court finds no reason to believe, nor does Petitioner argue, that the bond hearing he received was constitutionally inadequate. Accordingly, Petitioner's petition, [ECF No. 1 ], is DENIED without prejudice. The Court's order, [ECF No. 3 ], prohibiting Petitioner from being "deported, removed, or otherwise transferred outside the United States," is hereby dissolved.(CAM) (Entered: 07/10/2026)

#9

Jul 10, 2026

Order Dismissing Case

Jul 10, 2026

Order