District of Massachusetts • 1:26-cv-13733

#1

Aug 13, 2026

PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241), filed by Carlos Hernandez Arevalo. (Attachments: # 1 Payment) (CEH) (Entered: 08/13/2026)

#2

Aug 13, 2026

MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re 1 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) by Carlos Hernandez Arevalo (CEH) (Entered: 08/13/2026)

#3

Aug 13, 2026

ELECTRONIC NOTICE of Case Assignment. District Judge Leo T. Sorokin 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. (MAC) (Entered: 08/13/2026)

#4

Aug 13, 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). (SED) (Entered: 08/13/2026)

#5

Aug 13, 2026

District Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ORDER entered. ORDER CONCERNING SERVICE OF PETITION AND STAY OF TRANSFER OR REMOVAL (SED) (Entered: 08/13/2026)

#6

Aug 13, 2026

Copy re 5 Service Order - 2241 Petition, 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) Petition emailed to Duty AUSA and mailed to Respondents and USAO on 8/13/2026 and mailed to Carlos Hernandez Arevalo on 8/13/2026. (SED) (Entered: 08/13/2026)

Aug 13, 2026

Copy Mailed

Aug 13, 2026

Notice of Case Assignment

#7

Aug 18, 2026

NOTICE of Appearance by Vincent Engingro, III on behalf of Antone Moniz, David Wesling (Engingro, Vincent) (Entered: 08/18/2026)

#8

Aug 18, 2026

RESPONSE/ANSWER to Petitioner's 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) by Antone Moniz, David Wesling. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Engingro, Vincent) (Entered: 08/18/2026)

#9

Aug 20, 2026

District Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered.The respondents shall supplement their answer to clarify: 1) whether they view the recent decision by the First Circuit in Guerrero Orellana v. Moniz as binding on them in this case (either as a matter of law or Executive Branch discretion), and, if not, why not; and 2) whether they view the decision by the First Circuit in Guerrero Orellana v. Moniz as binding on this Court in this case, and, if not, why not. This submission shall be filed by August 25, 2026.(FGD) (Entered: 08/20/2026)

Aug 20, 2026

Order

#10

Aug 25, 2026

RESPONSE TO COURT ORDER by Antone Moniz, David Wesling re 9 Order,, . (Engingro, Vincent) (Entered: 08/25/2026)

#11

Aug 25, 2026

Filing fee/payment: $ 5.00, receipt number 100016330 for 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) (LBO) (Entered: 08/25/2026)

#12

Aug 25, 2026

District Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. The Court has reviewed the respondents’ submission supplementing their answer in response to the Court’s prior order directing them to clarify their position on issues the Court enumerated. See Doc. No. 9. The respondents now urge the Court to deny the habeas petition in this case due to the petitioner’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies—an argument not raised by the respondents in their original answer. Compare Doc. No. 10, with Doc. No. 8. In support of this argument, the respondents state: “Petitioner should be required to exhaust his administrative remedies because... seeking a bond hearing [would not] be futile.” Doc. No. 10 at 3. The respondents are hereby ORDERED to further supplement their answer, no later than September 4, 2026, by identifying the factual and legal basis for this assertion. To the extent their position depends on facts, they shall include with their supplement a declaration from a representative of the respondents with firsthand knowledge of the relevant facts. The Court requires this supplement due to the respondents’ representation earlier in their submission that they “are unable to definitively answer the Court’s question(s),” including whether the First Circuit’s decision in Guerrero Orellana v. Moniz is binding on the respondents and the Court “in this case.” Doc. No. 10 at 1. The Court’s experience in cases such as this one suggests that, before the First Circuit’s decision, the respondents would have viewed this petitioner’s detention as governed by 8 U.S.C. 1225 and would have refused to provide this petitioner a bond hearing unless a federal court ordered them to provide such a hearing. The respondents’ submissions in this case, post-dating the First Circuit’s decision, neither describe a change in the respondents’ practices or position in this regard nor concede that the First Circuit’s decision obligates them to provide a bond hearing to this petitioner (or requires this Court to order one). Absent such a change or concession, the Court cannot on the respondents’ submissions to date evaluate their claims concerning exhaustion, including in particular their assertion that a request by this petitioner for a prompt bond hearing (unaccompanied by a federal court order) would not be futile.(MAL) (Entered: 08/25/2026)

Aug 25, 2026

Order

Aug 25, 2026

Filing Fee/Payment Received

#13

Aug 26, 2026

Copy re 12 Order, mailed to Carlos Hernandez Arevalo on 8/26/2026. (MAL) (Entered: 08/26/2026)

Aug 26, 2026

Copy Mailed

#14

Sep 04, 2026

RESPONSE TO COURT ORDER by Antone Moniz, David Wesling re 12 Order,,,,,,,,,, . (Engingro, Vincent) (Entered: 09/04/2026)

#15

Sep 08, 2026

District Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. The Court has reviewed the petition, filed by Carlos Hernandez Arevalo on his own behalf, as well as Respondents’ filings, in which Respondents acknowledge that Petitioner is eligible for a bond hearing conducted pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) under the binding decision in Guerrero Orellana v. Moniz, No. 25-2152, 2026 WL 2352042 (1st Cir. Aug. 13, 2026). Doc. Nos. 1, 8, 10, 14 . In light of the foregoing, the Court construes—and ORDERS the respondents to likewise construe—the pending pro se petition as conveying a request for a bond hearing before an immigration judge. The Court further ORDERS that such a hearing shall be scheduled (if it has not already been scheduled) to occur by September 15, 2026; that the legal standard governing such hearing is as established by the First Circuit in Hernandez-Lara v. Lyons; that, in determining whether the government has met its burden of proof as to risk of flight or danger, the immigration judge shall consider whether any condition, combination of conditions, or less-restrictive alternative to detention would ameliorate such risk; and that the respondents shall not retaliate against Petitioner for the filing of this action. The parties shall file a joint status report by September 21, 2026, notifying the Court of whether a bond hearing has occurred and, if so, its outcome. The merits of the habeas petition remain under advisement pending receipt and review of that status report.(FGD) (Entered: 09/08/2026)

Sep 08, 2026

Order AND ~Util - Set Deadlines