District of Massachusetts • 1:26-cv-13056

#1

Jul 02, 2026

First PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) Filing fee: $ 5, receipt number AMADC-11860813 Fee status: Filing Fee paid., filed by Odlin Nelson. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Category Form, # 3 Exhibit I-94, # 4 Exhibit NTA, # 5 Exhibit I-589 First Page, # 6 Exhibit MA Driver's License, # 7 Exhibit Lease Agreement, # 8 Exhibit I-200 Warrant)(Hamilton, Philip) (Entered: 07/02/2026)

#2

Jul 02, 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. (SP) (Entered: 07/02/2026)

#3

Jul 02, 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). (MBM) (Entered: 07/02/2026)

#4

Jul 02, 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, July 6, 2026.Respondents shall provide any further answer to the Petition, if necessary, no later than 1:00 p.m. on Thursday, July 9, 2026.(MBM) (Entered: 07/02/2026)

#5

Jul 02, 2026

Copy re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241), 4 Service Order - 2241 Petition emailed to Duty AUSA Annapurna Balakrishna and USAMA Civil Process, mailed to each respondents on 7/2/2026. (MBM) (Entered: 07/02/2026)

Jul 02, 2026

Notice of Case Assignment

Jul 02, 2026

Copy Mailed

#6

Jul 06, 2026

Notice of Appearance

#7

Jul 06, 2026

Response to Court Order

#8

Jul 07, 2026

First MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice for admission of Simon Silvan-Recht Filing fee: $ 5, receipt number AMADC-11870966 by Odlin Nelson. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Affidavit of Simon Silvan-Recht, # 2 Exhibit Proposed Order)(Hamilton, Philip) (Entered: 07/07/2026)

#9

Jul 08, 2026

Judge Brian E. Murphy: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered granting 8 Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Added Simon Silvan-Recht. 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: 07/08/2026)

#10

Jul 08, 2026

NOTICE of Appearance by Simon Silvan-Recht on behalf of Odlin Nelson (Silvan-Recht, Simon) (Entered: 07/08/2026)

Jul 08, 2026

Order on Motion for Leave to Appear

#11

Jul 09, 2026

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

#12

Jul 09, 2026

Judge Brian E. Murphy: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered GRANTING in part 1 the petition for writ of habeas corpus. It is undisputed that Petitioner was paroled into the United States pursuant to 8 U.S.C. s. 1182(d)(5)(A), and that his humanitarian parole expired in August 2025. See Dkt. 1 para. 2; Dkt. 11 at 2–3; see also Dkt. 1-3. Petitioner argues that because he was arrested in the interior of the United States after his parole expired, he is now detained under 8 U.S.C. s. 1226(a), rather than 8 U.S.C. s. 1225(b). See Dkt. 1 para. 37; see also Dkt. 1 - 8 (Warrant for Arrest of Alien under sections 236 and 287 of the Immigration and Nationality Act). However, this Court has already rejected that argument, see Tenemasa-Lema v. Hyde, 810 F. Supp. 3d 244, 251–52 (D. Mass. 2025), and the Court concludes that Petitioner’s detention is subject to 8 U.S.C. 1225(b). Nonetheless, as Respondents concede, this Court has previously determined that petitioners detained under 8 U.S.C. s. 1225(b) are entitled to a bond hearing. Dkt. 11 at 13–14 (citing Rincon v. Hyde, 810 F. Supp. 3d 101 (D. Mass. 2025)). Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that Petitioner receive a constitutionally adequate bond hearing to consider the merits of his release on or before July 16, 2026. Respondents are further ORDERED to file a status report on or before July 20, 2026, notifying the Court whether Petitioner has been granted bond and released or, if his request for bond was denied, providing the reasons for that denial, and including therewith the decision by the immigration judge. (MBM). (Entered: 07/09/2026)

Jul 09, 2026

Order

#13

Jul 17, 2026

Status Report

#14

Jul 17, 2026

Judge Brian E. Murphy: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. In light of Petitioner’s filing, Dkt. 13, Respondents are ORDERED to secure the written decision of the Immigration Judge and provide it to the Court on or before Monday, July 20, 2026. (MBM) (Entered: 07/17/2026)

Jul 17, 2026

Order

#15

Jul 20, 2026

Response to Court Order

#16

Jul 28, 2026

Judge Brian E. Murphy: ORDER entered. FINAL JUDGMENT... In accordance with this Court’s Order (ECF #12) issued on July 9, 2026, granting in part the Petitioner’s Writ of Habeas Corpus, it is hereby ORDERED: Judgment for the Petitioner against the Respondents. (MBM) (Entered: 07/28/2026)

#17

Jul 28, 2026

Enforce Judgment

#18

Jul 28, 2026

Memorandum in Support of Motion

#19

Jul 28, 2026

Judge Brian E. Murphy: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. Respondents are ordered to file a response to Petitioner's motion to enforce on or before Monday, August 3, 2026 at 3:00 p.m., and include therewith all evidence presented to the Immigration Judge that Petitioner did not submit, if any, and a transcript or audio recording of the July 16, 2026 bond hearing. (BL) (Entered: 07/28/2026)

Jul 28, 2026

Order

#20

Aug 03, 2026

Notice of Manual Filing

#21

Aug 03, 2026

Opposition to Motion

#22

Aug 04, 2026

Judge Brian E. Murphy: ELECTRONIC ORDER DENYING 17 Motion to Enforce Judgment. Petitioner challenges the constitutionality of his bond determination. Dkt. 17 at 1. The immigration judge (“IJ”) found that “DHS has established by clear and convincing evidence that the Respondent poses a danger to the community.” Dkt. 18 -1 at 4. Therefore, Petitioner must show that as a matter of law, no reasonable IJ could have found that evidence proved by clear and convincing evidence that Petitioner is a danger to the community. See Miti v. Moniz, 827 F. Supp. 3d 206, 217 (D. Mass. 2026); Diaz Ortiz v. Smith, 384 F. Supp. 3d 140, 143 (D. Mass. 2019). Here, Respondents provided evidence that Petitioner had been arrested and charged with assault and battery and operating under the influence. Dkt. 18 -1 at 3-4, 59-63, 69-74. While the IJ acknowledged that the assault and battery charges were dismissed, she also noted that the charges were serious in nature. Id. at 4; see also id. at 57-58, 64 (indicating that the assault and battery charge was dismissed pursuant to completion of pre-trial probation). The IJ considered the police report for the pending OUI charge, which described that Petitioner “blew a 0.098% Blood Alcohol Content” and Petitioner was unable to complete four field sobriety tests. Id. at 4, 72-73. Therefore, a reasonable jurist could have found that Petitioner was dangerous. Accordingly, the Court finds that the evidence is not insufficient as a matter of law, and the motion is DENIED. (MBM) (Entered: 08/04/2026)

Aug 04, 2026

Order on Motion to Enforce Judgment