District of Massachusetts • 1:25-cv-12502

#1

Sep 09, 2025

First PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) Filing fee: $ 5, receipt number AMADC-11227398 Fee status: Filing Fee paid., filed by Jorge Eduardo Melgar Pirir. (Attachments: # 1 Category Form, # 2 Civil Cover Sheet)(Pomerleau, Todd) (Entered: 09/09/2025)

#2

Sep 09, 2025

Judge Indira Talwani: ORDER entered. EMERGENCY ORDER CONCERNING STAY OF TRANSFER OR REMOVAL. (BAH) (Entered: 09/09/2025)

#3

Sep 10, 2025

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: 09/10/2025)

#4

Sep 10, 2025

General Order 19-02, dated June 1, 2019 regarding Public Access to Immigration Cases Restricted by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(c). (MAC) (Entered: 09/10/2025)

#5

Sep 10, 2025

Chief District Judge Denise J. Casper: ORDER entered. ORDER CONCERNING SERVICE OF PETITION AND STAY OF TRANSFER OR REMOVAL. (SEC) (Entered: 09/10/2025)

#6

Sep 10, 2025

NOTICE of Appearance by Rayford A. Farquhar on behalf of Pamela Bondi, Patricia Hyde, Michael Krol, Todd Lyons, Kristi Noem, Donald J. Trump (Farquhar, Rayford) (Entered: 09/10/2025)

Sep 10, 2025

Notice of Case Assignment

#7

Sep 24, 2025

Notice of Appearance

#8

Sep 24, 2025

Extension of Time to File Response/Reply

Oct 14, 2025

Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply

#10

Oct 21, 2025

Miscellaneous Relief

#11

Oct 22, 2025

Extension of Time to File Response/Reply

#12

Oct 23, 2025

Notice of Appearance

#13

Oct 23, 2025

Response - not related to a motion

#14

Oct 23, 2025

Declaration

Oct 24, 2025

Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply

#16

Oct 27, 2025

Order

#17

Oct 30, 2025

Opposition to Motion

#18

Nov 03, 2025

Notice of Appearance

#19

Nov 14, 2025

Chief District Judge Denise J. Casper: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. Having reviewed the Petition of Jorge Eduardo Melgar Pirir ("Petitioner") for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (the “Petition”), D. 1, Petitioner's motion for release, D. 10, Respondents' response to both, D. 13, Petitioner's motion for an order for immediate transfer to the District of Massachusetts, D. 16, and Respondents' opposition to same, D. 17, 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 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. The Court DENIES Petitioner's motion for release pending adjudication of the Petition, D. 10, and DENIES Petitioner's motion for an order for immediate transfer back to the District of Massachusetts, D. 16.Factual Background. Petitioner is a noncitizen who has been living in the United States for "almost 20 years with his wife and three children, one of which is a U.S. Citizen." D. 1 ¶ 20. In 2017, Petitioner filed an I-589 Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal based on "death threats he received from his uncle in Guatemala" that is currently pending. Id. ¶¶ 1, 22. Petitioner also has an approved I-765 under the C8 Category. Id. ¶ 12. On or about September 8, 2025, Lynn Police Department arrested Petitioner and took him into custody following an altercation with a neighbor. Id. ¶ 24. Petitioner was charged with Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon, D. 14 ¶ 11, and was subsequently released on recognizance, D. 1 ¶ 24, but then was taken into the custody of U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement ("ICE"), id. ICE served him with a Notice to Appear placing him into removal proceedings, D. 14 ¶ 9.The same day, Petitioner filed the Petition. D. 1. Shortly thereafter, Respondents report that at 5:05 p.m. "Petitioner departed Massachusetts by a flight" and "landed in Buffalo, New York at 6:35 pm." D. 14 ¶ 10. At 5:09 p.m., this Court issued an emergency order prohibiting Respondents from "remov[ing] the petitioner from the jurisdiction of the United States or transfer[ing] petitioner to a judicial district outside that of Massachusetts for a period of at least 48 hours from the time this Order is docketed." D. 2 at 1-2. Petitioner is currently in ICE custody in El Paso, Texas. D. 14 ¶ 5.Discussion. As an initial matter, the Court considers whether it has jurisdiction over the Petition. "In determining whether this court has jurisdiction over a habeas corpus petition, it first must determine the proper respondent to the petition and, second, whether the court has jurisdiction over that respondent." McPherson v. Holder, No. 14-cv-30207-MGM, 2015 WL 12861171, at *2 (D. Mass. Mar. 4, 2015) (citing Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 434 (2004)). As to the general rule about naming the immediate custodian, the respondent is typically "the warden of the facility where the prisoner is being held, not the Attorney General or some other remote supervisory official." Padilla, 542 U.S. at 435; see Vasquez v. Reno, 233 F.3d 688, 696 (1st Cir. 2000). Here, Petitioner names Patricia Hyde, Field Office Director of ICE, Todd Lyons, Director of ICE, Michael Krol, Homeland Security Investigations New England Special Agent in Charge, Pamela Bondi, U.S. Attorney General, Kristi Noem, U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security, and Donald J. Trump, President of the United States. D. 1 at 1. Although none of these individuals are Petitioner's immediate custodian, "Respondents do not contest that this Court has jurisdiction over this Petition," D. 13 at 2 n.3, thus the Court finds the immediate custodian rule waived. See Tok v. Kyes, No. 24-CV-12458-ADB, 2025 WL 2200412, at *4 (D. Mass. Aug. 1, 2025) (recognizing that some courts "have found that this issue can be waived"). As to the district of confinement rule, as a general matter, a petitioner must file his petition in the district of confinement. Padilla, 542 U.S. at 447. Here, Petitioner filed the Petition when he was originally detained in Massachusetts, D. 1 ¶ 24; D. 14 ¶ 5, thus this Court's jurisdiction attached at the time he filed the Petition. See Williams v. Warden, FCI Berlin, 786 F. Supp. 3d 436, 446 (D.N.H. 2025) (citing Griffin v. Ebbert, 751 F.3d 288, 290 (5th Cir. 2014)). Petitioner, however, was subsequently transferred outside of Massachusetts and is currently in custody in El Paso, Texas. D. 14 ¶¶ 5, 10. "While the First Circuit has not weighed in directly, every court of appeals to have considered the issue has held in some form that the government's post-filing transfer of a § 2241 petitioner out of the court's territorial jurisdiction does not strip the court of jurisdiction over the petition." Williams, 786 F. Supp. 3d at 446 (internal quotation and quotation marks omitted) (collecting cases); Yancey v. Warden, FMC Devens, 682 F. Supp. 3d 97, 100 (D. Mass. 2023) (internal citation omitted) (collecting cases). As noted above, "Respondents do not contest that this Court has jurisdiction over this Petition," D. 13 at 2 n.3, which indicates that they waive both the immediate custodian and the district of confinement rules. Further, in contrast to cases in which "there is no indication that any official with custody over, or legal authority to release, Petitioner remains in this district," see Gonzalez, 152 F. Supp. 3d at 45, certain of the Respondents here who have not objected to the jurisdiction of this Court, namely the Attorney General, "ha[ve] the power to provide the relief sought," i.e., a bond hearing, cf. id. (emphasis in original). For all of these reasons, Court concludes that it has jurisdiction over the Petition. As to the Petition itself, consistent with this Court's ruling in Da Silva v. Bondi et al., No. 25-cv-12672, 2025 WL 2969163, at *2 (D. Mass. Oct. 21, 2025), the Court concludes that Petitioner's custody is covered by 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) (which allows for discretionary determination of custody before an immigration judge), not § 1225(b)(2) as the government contends. Id. and cases cited. Thus, Petitioner is entitled to a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). The Court leaves the question of whether Petitioner's charge of assault and battery triggers mandatory detention under § 1226(c) to the immigration judge to address in the first instance. See Order, Calel Cumes v. Moniz et al., No. 25-cv-12514-PBS (D. Mass. Oct. 6, 2025), D. 17 at 4-5. Having determined that the Petition succeeds on the merits insofar as he seeks a bond hearing, the Court denies Petitioner's motion for release pending adjudication of his Petition. D. 10.Petitioner also moves for an order for immediate transfer to the District of Massachusetts. D. 16. Petitioner argues that he should be returned to Massachusetts because this Court has jurisdiction over this action and the action cannot properly be, nor is it requested to be, transferred to Texas. Id. at 2-4. Respondents contend that ICE "has discretion to determine the detention location of individuals within their custody," Petitioner's transfer was within its authority and the Court further lacks jurisdiction to review its transfer decision, D. 17 at 2-3. As an initial matter, the Court rejects Respondents' suggestion that this Court lacks jurisdiction to review ICE's decision to transfer Petitioner. Although 8 U.S.C. § 1231(g)(1) provides that "[t]he Attorney General shall arrange for appropriate places of detention for aliens detained pending removal or a decision on removal," "the First Circuit has explained that 'section 1231(g) fails to "specify" that individualized transfer decisions are in the Attorney General's discretion.'" Savino v. Souza, 459 F. Supp. 3d 317, 324 (D. Mass. 2020) (citing Aguilar v. U.S. ICE, 510 F.3d 1, 20 (1st Cir. 2007)). Thus, there is no bar on judicial review of this action under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii). Aguilar, 510 F.3d at 20-21. That being said, it appears that the Court’s stay order was not in effect when Petitioner was transferred outside of Massachusetts and, as explained above, this Court retains jurisdiction over the Petition, the Court denies Petitioner's motion to transfer him back to the jurisdiction of Massachusetts, D. 16.For the aforementioned 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 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. The Court DENIES Petitioner's motion for release pending adjudication of the Petition, D. 10, and DENIES Petitioner's motion for an order for immediate transfer to the District of Massachusetts, D. 16. (LMH) (Entered: 11/14/2025)

Nov 14, 2025

Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief AND Order on Motion for Order