District of Massachusetts • 1:25-cv-12677

#1

Sep 19, 2025

Emergency PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) Filing fee: $ 5, receipt number AMADC-11248864 Fee status: Filing Fee paid., filed by Odelir Dias De Carvalho. (Attachments: # 1 Category Form, # 2 Civil Cover Sheet)(Cerretani, Gabriela) (Entered: 09/19/2025)

#2

Sep 19, 2025

ELECTRONIC NOTICE of Case Assignment. Judge William G. Young 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. (SEC) (Entered: 09/19/2025)

#3

Sep 19, 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). (MBM) (Entered: 09/19/2025)

#4

Sep 19, 2025

Judge William G. Young ORDER entered: Order Concerning Service of Petition and Stay of Transfer or Removal. Respondents shall answer or otherwise respond to the petition no later than Friday September 26, 2025. (MAP) (Entered: 09/19/2025)

Sep 19, 2025

Notice of Case Assignment

#5

Sep 20, 2025

Amended Emergency PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) filed by Odelir Dias De Carvalho. (Attachments: # 1 Category Form Amended, # 2 Civil Cover Sheet Amended)(Cerretani, Gabriela) Modified on 9/21/2025 (MAP). (Entered: 09/20/2025)

#8

Sep 23, 2025

Service Order-2241 Petition

#9

Sep 23, 2025

Notice of Appearance

Sep 23, 2025

Order Reassigning Case

Sep 23, 2025

Notice of Case Assignment

#10

Oct 03, 2025

Response - not related to a motion

#11

Oct 09, 2025

Chief District Judge Denise J. Casper: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. If Petitioner intends to file a reply brief, it should be filed by 10/16/25. (LMH) (Entered: 10/09/2025)

Oct 09, 2025

Order

#12

Oct 15, 2025

RESPONSE TO COURT ORDER by Odelir Dias De Carvalho re 11 Order . (Cerretani, Gabriela) (Entered: 10/15/2025)

Oct 15, 2025

Status Report

#14

Nov 04, 2025

Chief District Judge Denise J. Casper: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. Having reviewed the amended petition for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (the "Amended Petition") filed by Petitioner Odelir Dias De Carvalho ("Petitioner"), D. 5, Respondents' opposition to same, D. 10, and Petitioner's reply, D. 12, the Court ALLOWS the Amended 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 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.Factual Background. Petitioner is a noncitizen from Brazil currently detained at Plymouth County Correctional Facility. D. 5 ¶¶ 3, 9. Petitioner entered the United States without inspection on or about 2001 and has since then continuously resided in the country. Id. ¶¶ 3, 16-17. On or about September 19, 2025, U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") detained Petitioner and took him into custody. Id. ¶¶ 4, 18. In the Amended Petition, D. 5, Petitioner alleges that his detention is not authorized under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b), D. 5 ¶¶ 31-35, and that his custody is properly governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) given "his longstanding residence [in the United States] and the absence of any contemporaneous inspection or expedited-removal process." Id. ¶ 19. Petitioner further contends his detention violates his rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, because the Petitioner is entitled to an individualized custody hearing before an immigration judge, D. 5 ¶¶ 25-30, and violates the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"), D. 5 ¶¶ 36-40. Discussion. Petitioner brings this Amended Petition to challenge his detention in this district and seeks relief from same. D. 5 at 8-9. Accordingly, this Court has jurisdiction over the Amended Petition as it concerns relief that Petitioner seeks challenging his 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").The Court agrees with Petitioner that his 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), as Respondents contend (which provides for mandatory detention for "applicants for admission"); see Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281, 289 (2018) (discussing the distinction). Here, the Petitioner was already residing in the United States for over twenty years when ICE arrested him. D. 5 ¶¶ 3-4; D. 12 at 2. Respondents have not indicated that Petitioner was "arriving" in the United States at the time of his arrest and nothing in the record indicates that Petitioner was detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1225 rather than 8 U.S.C. § 1226. Finally, there is no indication that Petitioner has been convicted of a crime or has engaged in any unlawful activity requiring mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C § 1226(c). See 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c)(1)(A)-(D). As Respondents acknowledge in their opposition, D. 10 at 7 n.4, "[o]ther sessions of this Court have determined that 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), and not 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2), applies to aliens arrested and detained within the United States, even if such alien meets the definition of an applicant for admission as an alien present in the United States who has not been admitted." The Court agrees with these courts that the detention of noncitizens such as Petitioner, who are arrested and detained within the United States, is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and that Petitioner is thus entitled to a bond hearing and individualized determination of detention. See Guerrero Orellana v. Moniz, No. 25-cv-12664-PBS, 2025 WL 2809996, at *6-8 (D. Mass. Oct. 3, 2025) (noting that "construing § 1226 rather than § 1225(b)(2)(A) to apply to noncitizens while residing in the United States aligns with longstanding agency practice" and that "the Court’s holding does not turn on the existence of a warrant or the warrant's language [] because § 1225(b)(2)(A)'s plain terms do not encompass noncitizens like [Petitioner] who entered the United States unlawfully and are apprehended while residing in the country") and cases cited; Order, de Los Reyes Gonzalez v. McDonald, No. 25-cv-12644-RGS (D. Mass. Oct. 9, 2025), D. 10 (agreeing with analysis in Guerrero Orellana that "when a non-criminal noncitizen residing within the United States is detained, his detention is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) rather than 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)"); Order, Orellana-Serrano v. Hyde, No. 25-cv-12646-MJJ (D. Mass. Oct. 10, 2025), D. 18; Order, Amaya Sanchez v. Moniz, No. 25-cv-12806-AK (D. Mass. Oct. 8, 2025), D. 10; Order, Colombo v. Moniz, No. 25-cv-12733-MJJ (D. Mass. Sept. 30, 2025), D. 8; see also Da Silva v. Bondi, et al., No. 25-cv-12672, 2025 WL 2969163, at *2 (D. Mass. Oct. 21, 2025) and cases cited.For the foregoing reasons, 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. Accordingly, Petitioner's Amended Petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, D. 5, is ALLOWED 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 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.(LMH) (Entered: 11/04/2025)

Nov 04, 2025

Order

#15

Nov 12, 2025

Status Report

Nov 14, 2025

Order Dismissing Case