District of Massachusetts • 1:26-cv-12985

#1

Jun 30, 2026

PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) Filing fee: $ 5, receipt number AMADC-11853184 Fee status: Filing Fee paid., filed by Victor Alfonso Inga Paguay. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Category Form)(Roth, Stephen) (Entered: 06/30/2026)

#2

Jun 30, 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. (FGD) (Entered: 06/30/2026)

#3

Jun 30, 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: 06/30/2026)

#4

Jun 30, 2026

Chief District Judge Denise J. Casper: ORDER entered. ORDER CONCERNING SERVICE OF PETITION AND STAY OF TRANSFER OR REMOVAL. (EZG) (Entered: 06/30/2026)

Jun 30, 2026

Notice of Case Assignment

#5

Jul 06, 2026

Notice of Appearance

#6

Jul 07, 2026

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

#7

Jul 13, 2026

Chief District Judge Denise J. Casper: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) filed by Victor Alfonso Inga Paguay. Having reviewed the petition for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (the "Petition") filed by Petitioner Victor Alfonso Inga Paguay ("Petitioner"), D. 1, and Respondents' response to same, D. 6, the Court ALLOWS the Petition insofar as it sought a bond hearing/individualized custody redetermination before an immigration judge under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), at which the government bears the burden of proving Petitioner poses a danger to the community or flight risk, see Hernandez-Lara v. Lyons, 10 F.4th 19, 41 (1st Cir. 2021), which the Court ORDERS within seven (7) days of this Order. Respondents are also ENJOINED from denying Petitioner bond on the basis that he is detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). 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.Factual Background.Petitioner is a noncitizen from Ecuador currently detained in the custody of Immigration and Customs Enforcement at Plymouth County Correctional Facility. D. 1 ¶¶ 3, 8-9. Petitioner entered the United States without inspection on approximately October 28, 2023. Id. ¶ 4. He is authorized to work in the United States and has no criminal record. Id. ¶¶ 6-7. On June 27, 2026, immigration authorities took Petitioner into custody. Id. ¶ 8.Petitioner alleges that his detention is not authorized under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b), and that his custody is properly governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). Id. ¶¶ 25-26, 34-40. Petitioner contends that his detention without a bond hearing is, therefore, unlawful, including because it violates his rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, id. ¶¶ 61-69, and is contrary to statute and regulation and violates the declaratory judgment issued by another session of this Court, id. ¶¶ 54-60; id. at 22. Discussion. The Petition challenges Petitioner's detention in this district and seeks relief from same. Id. at 24-25. Accordingly, 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").Consistent with this Court's prior rulings, including and not limited to Da Silva v. Bondi, No. 25-cv-12672, 2025 WL 2969163, at *2 (D. Mass. Oct. 21, 2025), and Dias de Carvalho v. Hyde, 25-cv-12677-DJC (D. Mass. Nov. 4, 2025), D. 14, the Court agrees with Petitioner that his custody is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) (which allows for discretionary determinations of custody before an immigration judge) and not 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) (which provides for mandatory detention for "applicants for admission"), as Respondents contend, see D. 6 at 1 n.2; see also Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281, 289 (2018) (discussing the distinction). Respondents submit that this Court's decision in Dias de Carvalho is likely dispositive here. See D. 6 at 1. Thus, the Court concludes that Petitioner is entitled to a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). See Barbosa da Cunha v. Freden, 175 F.4th 61, 71 (2d Cir. 2026) (affirming that petitioner's detention "is governed by Section 1226 and that he is entitled to a bond hearing . . . consistent with the decisions of . . . over ninety percent of district court judges").Accordingly, the Court ALLOWS the Petition, D. 1, insofar as it sought a bond hearing/individualized custody redetermination under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), at which the government bears the burden of proving Petitioner poses a danger to the community or flight risk, see Hernandez-Lara, 10 F.4th at 41, which the Court ORDERS within seven (7) days of this Order. Respondents are also ENJOINED from denying Petitioner bond on the basis that he is detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). 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: 07/13/2026)

Jul 13, 2026

Order

#8

Jul 23, 2026

Status Report

#9

Jul 24, 2026

Chief District Judge Denise J. Casper: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. In light of the recent status report, D. 8, and the relief previously granted by the Court, the Court DISMISSES the Petition and closes this case. (SEC) (Entered: 07/24/2026)

#10

Jul 24, 2026

Order Dismissing Case

Jul 24, 2026

Order