District of Massachusetts • 1:26-cv-10025

#1

Jan 05, 2026

PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) Filing fee: $ 5, receipt number AMADC-11452211 Fee status: Filing Fee paid., filed by Heloisa Aparecida Gomes Gualberto. (Attachments: # 1 Category Form, # 2 Civil Cover Sheet, # 3 Exhibit) (Kravitz, Daniel) Modified on 1/5/2026: to remove duplicate docket text (EZG). (Entered: 01/05/2026)

#2

Jan 05, 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 Jessica D. Hedges. (CEH) (Entered: 01/05/2026)

#3

Jan 05, 2026

Chief District Judge Denise J. Casper: ORDER entered. ORDER CONCERNING SERVICE OF PETITION AND STAY OF TRANSFER OR REMOVAL. (SEC) (Entered: 01/05/2026)

Jan 05, 2026

Notice of Case Assignment

#4

Jan 06, 2026

General Order 19-02

#5

Jan 06, 2026

Notice of Appearance

#6

Jan 12, 2026

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

#7

Jan 16, 2026

Notice - Other

#8

Jan 16, 2026

Response - not related to a motion

#9

Jan 16, 2026

Chief District Judge Denise J. Casper: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. The Court has reviewed the government's notice regarding its intent to move Petitioner to a facility out of state, D. 7, filed in compliance with this Court's prior Order, D. 3, and Petitioner's response, D. 8, to that notice. To the extent that Petitioner opposes the move, the response provides no legal basis to oppose the move (one proposed for lack of bed space at the present facility) particularly where the government agrees that this Court will retain jurisdiction over the Petition. D. 7 at 2. Accordingly, to the extent the Petitioner is opposing the move or seeking other relief, D. 8 at 2, such is denied.(LMH) (Entered: 01/16/2026)

Jan 16, 2026

Order

#10

Jan 26, 2026

Miscellaneous Relief

#11

Jan 30, 2026

Chief District Judge Denise J. Casper: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. Having reviewed the petition for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (the "Petition") filed by Petitioner Heloisa Aparecida Gomes Gualberto ("Petitioner"), D. 1, Respondents' response to same, D. 6, and Petitioner's supplemental filings, D. 8; D. 10, 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), which the Court ORDERS within seven (7) days of this Order. Respondents are also ENJOINED from denying Petitioner bond on the basis that she 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 her request for bond was denied, the reasons for that denial.Factual Background. Petitioner is a fifty-two-year-old noncitizen from Brazil currently detained in the custody of Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE"). D. 1 ¶¶ 1, 6, 14; D. 1-3 at 1; D. 8 ¶ 5; D. 8-1 at 1; D. 10 at 1-2; D. 10-1 at 1. Petitioner entered the United States in approximately June 2023. D. 1 ¶ 1; D. 8-1 at 3. Around that time, Customs and Border Patrol arrested Petitioner and served her a Notice to Appear. D. 8-1 at 3. In July 2024, the relevant "immigration court made the decision that th[e] case was a Failure to Prosecute." Id. On December 30, 2025, ICE detained Petitioner during a check-in with the agency and issued her a Notice to Appear. D. 1 ¶¶ 1-2; D. 8-1 at 2. Petitioner has no known criminal history in the United States. D. 8-1 at 3. Petitioner's removal proceedings are pending in Chelmsford Immigration Court, where she has a pending asylum application. D. 8 ¶ 6.Petitioner alleges that her detention is not authorized under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b), and that her custody is properly governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). D. 1 ¶¶ 4, 15-16. Petitioner contends that her current detention, therefore, violates her rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Id. ¶ 17. She seeks a bond hearing. Id. at 3. Discussion. Although Respondents previously submitted notice that they intended to transfer Petitioner from an ICE facility in this District to a facility in Louisiana, D. 7 at 1 (and given Petitioner’s recent filing, D. 10, it appears that this has happened), Respondents also have agreed that this Court would retain jurisdiction to resolve the Petition, id. at 2; D. 9. Accordingly, this Court has jurisdiction over the Petition as it concerns relief that Petitioner seeks challenging her 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 her 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 2 n.2; see also Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281, 289 (2018) (discussing the distinction). Respondents submit that this Court's decisions in Da Silva and Dias de Carvalho are likely dispositive here. See D. 6 at 1-2. Thus, the Court concludes that Petitioner is entitled to a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a).For the foregoing reasons, the Court concludes as follows. The Court ALLOWS the Petition, D. 1, insofar as it sought a bond hearing/individualized custody redetermination under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), which the Court ORDERS within seven (7) days of this Order. Respondents are also ENJOINED from denying Petitioner bond on the basis that she 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 her request for bond was denied, the reasons for that denial. (LMH) (Entered: 01/30/2026)

#12

Jan 30, 2026

Chief District Judge Denise J. Casper: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered re 10 MOTION of Unauthorized Transfer and MOTION for Return of Detainee by Heloisa Aparecida Gomes Gualberto. The Court is in receipt of Petitioner's Notice and motion. The Respondents shall file a response to same by February 9, 2026.(LMH) (Entered: 01/30/2026)

Jan 30, 2026

Order

#13

Feb 05, 2026

Miscellaneous Relief

#14

Feb 06, 2026

Miscellaneous Relief

#15

Feb 10, 2026

Response to Motion

#16

Feb 11, 2026

Response to Motion

#17

Feb 12, 2026

Reply to Response to Motion

#18

Feb 13, 2026

Chief District Judge Denise J. Casper: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered re: 13 Motion for Order. The Court DENIES Petitioner's motion for an order concerning Petitioner's custody redetermination hearing, D. 13, as moot in light of Petitioner's subsequent filing, D. 14. (LMH) (Entered: 02/13/2026)

#19

Feb 13, 2026

Chief District Judge Denise J. Casper: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered re: 14 Motion for Petitioner's Immediate Release from ICE Custody or In the Alternative a Bond Hearing re 11 Order by Heloisa Aparecida Gomes Gualberto. The Court has reviewed Petitioner's motion for immediate release or a new custody redetermination hearing, D. 14, Respondents' response to same, D. 16, and Petitioner's reply, D. 17. Respondents concede that the immigration judge applied an incorrect legal standard at Petitioner's February 6, 2026, bond hearing, and state that the proper remedy is a new bond hearing and that the Court has discretion to order same before the immigration court in Chelmsford rather than the Louisiana immigration court. See D. 16 at 4-5. Accordingly, the Court ALLOWS Petitioner's motion, D. 14, insofar as it sought a new individualized custody redetermination hearing 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). The Court ORDERS that such hearing be conducted within seven (7) days of this Order, via Webex, before the Chelmsford Immigration Court. Consistent with the Court's prior Order, D. 11, Respondents remain ENJOINED from denying Petitioner bond on the basis that she 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 her request for bond was denied, the reasons for that denial. (LMH) (Entered: 02/13/2026)

#20

Feb 13, 2026

Chief District Judge Denise J. Casper: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered re: 10 Motion of Unauthorized Transfer and MOTION for Return of Detainee by Heloisa Aparecida Gomes Gualberto. Petitioner's earlier motion regarding transfer is DENIED in light of the government's response, D. 15, and the relief granted today as to the subsequent motions, D. 13, D. 14. (LMH) (Entered: 02/13/2026)

Feb 13, 2026

Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief

#21

Feb 19, 2026

Status Report

#22

Feb 20, 2026

Amended Document - NOT Motion

#23

Feb 21, 2026

Exhibit Exhibit

#24

Feb 21, 2026

Chief District Judge Denise J. Casper: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. The Court is in receipt of Petitioner's motion, D. 23, filed today concerning difficulties in being permitted to pay bond to facilitate Petitioner's release from detention. By no later than February 23, 2026, Respondents shall file a status report responding to Petitioner's allegations and confirming whether the issue raised by Petitioner has been resolved. (LMH) (Entered: 02/21/2026)

Feb 21, 2026

Order

#25

Feb 23, 2026

Status Report