District of Massachusetts • 1:26-cv-12884

#1

Jun 25, 2026

PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241), filed by Kessler Perez-Valderramos. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Exhibit)(NMC) (Entered: 06/25/2026)

#2

Jun 25, 2026

ELECTRONIC NOTICE of Case Assignment. Judge Brian E. Murphy 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. (JAM) (Entered: 06/25/2026)

#3

Jun 25, 2026

Judge Brian E. Murphy: ORDER entered. ORDER CONCERNING SERVICE OF PETITION AND STAY OF TRANSFER OR REMOVAL.Respondents shall determine whether Petitioner is a member of the class certified in Guerrero Orellana v. Moniz, No. 25-CV-12664-PBS (D. Mass.), and notify the Court no later than 1:00 p.m. on Monday, June 29, 2026.Respondents shall provide any further answer to the Petition, if necessary, no later than 1:00 p.m. on Wednesday, July 1, 2026. (CAM) (Entered: 06/25/2026)

#4

Jun 25, 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). (CAM) (Entered: 06/25/2026)

#5

Jun 25, 2026

Copy re 3 Service Order - 2241 Petition,, 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) emailed to Duty AUSA Fitzgerald and USAMA Civil Process, mailed to respondent on 6/25/2026. (CAM) (Entered: 06/25/2026)

Jun 25, 2026

Notice of Case Assignment

Jun 25, 2026

Copy Mailed

#6

Jun 29, 2026

Notice of Appearance

#7

Jun 29, 2026

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

#8

Jun 29, 2026

Judge Brian E. Murphy: ELECTRONIC ORDER. In light of Petitioner’s representations that he was granted asylum on May 22, 2026, see Dkt. 1 -2 at 1, 6, Respondent is ordered to show cause on or before Tuesday, June 30, 2026 at 4:00 p.m. for why Petitioner should not be immediately released. (MBM) (Entered: 06/29/2026)

Jun 29, 2026

Order

#9

Jun 30, 2026

Response to Court Order

#10

Jul 01, 2026

Judge Brian E. Murphy: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. “Respondent[] submit[s] that the legal issues presented in this Petition are similar to those recently addressed by this Court in Martinez v. Hyde, No. 25-cv-11613-BEM, __ F. Supp. 3d __, 2025 WL 2084238 (D. Mass. July 24, 2025), and Romero v. Hyde, No. 25-cv-11631-BEM, __ F. Supp. 3d __, 2025 WL 2403827 (D. Mass. August 19, 2025).” Dkt. 7 at 1. In addition, Respondent asserts that “Petitioner appears to be a member of the class certified in Guerrero Orellana v. Moniz, Civil Action No. 25-cv-12664-PBS, 2025 WL 3687757, at *10 (D. Mass. Dec. 19, 2025).” Id. at 1 n.1. Accordingly, Petitioner is “subject to detention under 8 U.S.C. [s.] 1226(a).” Guerrero Orellana, 2025 WL 3687757, at *10; see also Dkt. 7 -2 (Warrant for Arrest of Alien pursuant to section 1226). For the reasons stated in the cases cited by Respondent, this Petition is GRANTED in part. Respondent shall release Petitioner by 5:00 pm on Tuesday, July 7, 2026, unless, before that time, Petitioner is provided a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. s. 1226(a). Any request for fees should be filed within the deadlines set by the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. s. 2412. (MBM) (Entered: 07/01/2026)

Jul 01, 2026

Order

#11

Jul 13, 2026

Filing fee/payment: $5.00, receipt number 100015794 for 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) (LBO) (Entered: 07/13/2026)

Jul 13, 2026

Filing Fee/Payment Received

#12

Jul 15, 2026

Judge Brian E. Murphy: ORDER entered. FINAL JUDGMENT... In accordance with this Court’s Order (ECF #10) issued on July 1, 2026, granting in part the Petitioner’s Writ of Habeas Corpus, it is hereby ORDERED: Judgment for the Petitioner against the Respondents. (MBM) (Entered: 07/15/2026)

#13

Oct 08, 2026

Notice of Appearance

#14

Oct 08, 2026

Appear Pro Hac Vice

#15

Oct 08, 2026

Enforce Judgment

#16

Oct 09, 2026

Judge Brian E. Murphy: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered granting 14 Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Added Thomas Beretich. Attorneys admitted Pro Hac Vice must have an individual PACER account, not a shared firm account, to electronically file in the District of Massachusetts. To register for a PACER account, go the Pacer website at https://pacer.uscourts.gov/register-account. You must put the docket number under ADDITIONAL FILER INFORMATION on your form when registering or it will be rejected.Pro Hac Vice Admission Request Instructions https://www.mad.uscourts.gov/caseinfo/nextgen-pro-hac-vice.htm.A Notice of Appearance must be entered on the docket by the newly admitted attorney. (MBM) (Entered: 10/09/2026)

Oct 09, 2026

Order on Motion for Leave to Appear

#17

Oct 13, 2026

Judge Brian E. Murphy: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. Respondents are ordered to file a response to Petitioner's motion to enforce on or before Friday, October 16, 2026 at 1:00 p.m., and include therewith all evidence presented to the Immigration Judge that Petitioner did not submit, if any, and an audio recording of the July 7, 2026 bond hearing. (MBM) (Entered: 10/13/2026)

#18

Oct 13, 2026

Notice of Appearance

Oct 13, 2026

Order

#19

Oct 16, 2026

Seal

#20

Oct 16, 2026

Response to Motion

#21

Oct 16, 2026

Judge Brian E. Murphy: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered granting 19 Motion to Seal. Counsel will receive an email within twenty-four (24) hours of this order with instructions for submitting sealed documents for which leave has been granted in accordance with the Local Rules of the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts. Counsel must include - Leave to file granted on (date of order)- in the caption of the document. (MBM) (Entered: 10/16/2026)

Oct 16, 2026

Order on Motion to Seal

#22

Oct 20, 2026

Judge Brian E. Murphy: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. Petitioner challenges the constitutionality of his bond determination. Dkt. 15 at 5. At a bond hearing, the Government bears the burden of proving “by clear and convincing evidence that [Petitioner] poses a danger to the community” or “by a preponderance of the evidence that [Petitioner] poses a flight risk.” Hernandez-Lara v. Lyons, 10 F.4th 19, 41 (1st Cir. 2021). The Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) bond order cites Hernandez-Lara, Dkt. 15-1 at 3, and states that “DHS has met its burden of establishing that the Respondent pose a danger to the community,” id. at 4. However, the IJ also cites Matter of Siniauskas, 27 I. & N. Dec. 207 (BIA 2018), for the proposition that “the positive equities are insufficient to diminish the weight of the Court’s dangerousness finding.” Id. at 5. Siniauskas places the burden of proof on the noncitizen, so the citation in this context calls into question whether the correct standard was applied, see Diaz Ortiz v. Smith, 384 F. Supp. 3d 140 (D. Mass. 2019) (explaining that a petitioner can “point to the language of the [IJ’s] opinion” to “show that the [IJ] failed to place the burden of proof on the Government”). This concern is compounded by the fact that the IJ purportedly balanced the “positive equities” against “the speculative nature of the [asylum] relief available” and his lack of “significant ties to the United States,” Dkt. 15-1 at 5, both of which are traditionally understood to be relevant to the flight risk inquiry, see Matter of M-S-V-, 30 I. & N. Dec. 130, 133–34 (BIA 2026), rather than a dangerousness determination. Indeed, even Siniauskas—which incorrectly places the burden of proof on the noncitizen but remains relevant insofar as it establishes standards for determining dangerousness or flight risk—describes “family ties” and “possible eligibility for discretionary relief” as “proper considerations in deciding whether [a noncitizen] is a flight risk,” but notes that “family and community ties generally do not mitigate an alien’s dangerousness.” 27 I. & N. Dec. at 209–10.Further, “this Court, and others in this District, have required IJs to consider alternatives to detention under section 1226(a),” Lino-Ramos v. Moniz, 2026 WL 1759415, at *13 (D. Mass. June 18, 2026) (collecting cases), but the IJ’s order makes no mention of alternatives to detention.Respondent’s argument that Petitioner must “exhaust administrative remedies” prior to bringing his motion to enforce is unavailing. Dkt. 20 at 1. “[E]xhaustion is not required.” Tschimayi v. Moniz, No. 26-cv-13908, Dkt. 8 (D. Mass. Aug. 26, 2026); see also Cardenas Davila v. Moniz, No. 26-cv-14237, Dkt. 8 (D. Mass. Sep. 18, 2026).Accordingly, the motion to enforce is GRANTED in part. Respondents shall release Petitioner by 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, October 27, 2026, unless, before that time, Petitioner is provided a bond hearing which comports with the standards articulated in Hernandez-Lara, 10 F.4th at 26, and in which the presiding IJ considers alternatives to detention. Respondents are thereby ORDERED to file a status report by 12:00 p.m. on Thursday, October 29, 2026, detailing their compliance with this order. If a bond hearing was held, the status report shall state whether Petitioner has been granted bond, the date, time, and location of his release, or, if his request for bond was denied, the reasons for that denial. Respondents should include a copy of the IJ’s decision with the status report. (MBM) (Entered: 10/20/2026)

Oct 20, 2026

Order on Motion to Enforce Judgment

#23

Oct 29, 2026

Status Report

#24

Oct 29, 2026

Status Report