District of Massachusetts • 1:26-cv-14103

#1

Sep 08, 2026

Emergency PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) Filing fee: $ 5, receipt number AMADC-12013935 Fee status: Filing Fee paid., filed by Luis Darwin Bido Garcia. (Attachments: # 1 Category Form, # 2 Civil Cover Sheet, # 3 Exhibit 1 - Notice to Appear, # 4 Exhibit 2 - Form I-220A, Release on Recognizance)(Cerretani, Gabriela) (Entered: 09/08/2026)

#2

Sep 08, 2026

ELECTRONIC NOTICE of Case Assignment. District Judge Julia E. Kobick 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: 09/08/2026)

#3

Sep 08, 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). (Currie, Haley) (Entered: 09/08/2026)

#4

Sep 08, 2026

District Judge Julia E. Kobick: ORDER CONCERNING SERVICE OF PETITION AND STAY OR TRANSFER OF REMOVAL entered.The answer or responsive pleading is due no later than September 15, 2026. (Currie, Haley) (Entered: 09/08/2026)

#5

Sep 08, 2026

Copies of the following were mailed to all respondents on 9/8/2026: 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) and 4 Order Concerning Service of Petition and Stay or Transfer of Removal (Currie, Haley) (Entered: 09/08/2026)

Sep 08, 2026

Notice of Case Assignment

Sep 08, 2026

Copy Mailed

#6

Sep 09, 2026

NOTICE of Appearance by Mark Sauter on behalf of Todd W. Blanche, Antone Moniz, Markwayne Mullin, US Department of Homeland Security, David Venturella, David Wesling (Sauter, Mark) (Entered: 09/09/2026)

#7

Sep 14, 2026

RESPONSE/ANSWER to 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241), by Todd W. Blanche, Antone Moniz, Markwayne Mullin, US Department of Homeland Security, David Venturella, David Wesling. (Sauter, Mark) (Entered: 09/14/2026)

#8

Sep 14, 2026

District Judge Julia E. Kobick: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. Petitioner Luis Darwin Bido Garcia, a citizen of the Dominican Republic who entered the United States in January 2024, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on September 8, 2026 seeking his immediate release or, alternatively, a bond hearing pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). ECF 1, ¶¶ 1-2, 6. He was arrested and detained by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) on or about September 2, 2026. Id. ¶ 4. At the time of the petition, Bido Garcia was being held at the ICE Field Office in Burlington, Massachusetts. Id. ¶ 8.The respondents acknowledge that, based on the First Circuit’s decision in Guerrero Orellana v. Moniz, No. 25-2152, 2026 WL 2352042 (1st Cir. Aug. 13, 2026), “this Court will conclude that Petitioner’s detention is under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and that Petitioner is entitled to a bond hearing,” ECF 7, at 2. The respondents further “acknowledge, but respectfully disagree with, this Court’s recent decision” in Rodrigues da Silva v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Security, No. 26-cv-13854 (D. Mass. Aug. 25, 2026). ECF 7, at 2-3. In that case, the respondents did not dispute that petitioner was detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226 and was therefore entitled a bond hearing pursuant to Section 1226(a). ECF 8, Rodrigues da Silva, No. 26-cv-13854 (Aug. 25, 2026). Noncitizens “detained under Section 1226(a) have the right to request a bond hearing before an Immigration Judge, at which the government bears the burden to prove that continued detention is justified.” Sampiao v. Hyde, 799 F. Supp. 3d 14, 19-20 (D. Mass. 2025). Bond may be denied only if the government “either (1) prove[s] by clear and convincing evidence that [the noncitizen] poses a danger to the community or (2) prove[s] by a preponderance of the evidence that [the noncitizen] poses a flight risk.” Hernandez-Lara v. Lyons, 10 F.4th 19, 41 (1st Cir. 2021).The Court held in Rodrigues da Silva that the petitioner was not required to exhaust his administrative remedies. Exhaustion may be excused where a petitioner could “‘suffer irreparable harm if unable to secure immediate judicial consideration of his claim.’” Portela-Gonzalez v. Sec’y of the Navy, 109 F.3d 74, 77 (1st Cir. 1997) (quoting McCarthy v. Madigan, 503 U.S. 140, 147 (1992)). This includes situations where “the petitione[r] remains detained” pending the exhaustion of administrative remedies. Brito v. Garland, 22 F.4th 240, 256 (1st Cir. 2021). Here, the respondents make no assurances that Bido Garcia would receive a bond hearing within a reasonable period of time—i.e., one week—once requested. Absent such assurances, waiver of the exhaustion requirement is warranted because Bido Garcia, who remains in ICE custody, is likely to experience irreparable harm to his liberty while awaiting that hearing. SeeSampiao, 799 F. Supp. 3d at 25-26. Bido Garcia is therefore entitled to a bond hearing, as the respondents admit. ECF 7, at 2.For the foregoing reasons, Bido Garcia’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, ECF 1, is GRANTED. The respondents are ORDERED to provide him with a bond hearing pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within 7 days of this Order. The respondents are further ORDERED to file a status report within 24 hours of the Immigration Judge’s decision on bond, stating whether Bido Garcia has been granted bond, and, if his request for bond was denied, the reasons for that denial, or whether she has been released, and if so, the date, time, and location of his release. The respondents should include a copy of the Immigration Judge’s decision with their status report. (Currie, Haley) (Entered: 09/14/2026)

Sep 14, 2026

Order