District of Massachusetts • 1:26-cv-10852

#1

Feb 13, 2026

PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) Filing fee: $ 5, receipt number AMADC-11549811 Fee status: Filing Fee paid., filed by Willian Cabral dos Santos. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Category Form)(Silva, Jonatas) Modified on 2/13/2026 to edit docket text (SR). (Entered: 02/13/2026)

#2

Feb 13, 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. (SP) (Entered: 02/13/2026)

#3

Feb 13, 2026

Chief District Judge Denise J. Casper: ORDER entered. ORDER CONCERNING SERVICE OF PETITION AND STAY OF TRANSFER OR REMOVAL. (CAM) (Entered: 02/13/2026)

#4

Feb 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). (CAM) (Entered: 02/13/2026)

Feb 13, 2026

Notice of Case Assignment

#5

Feb 17, 2026

Copy re 3 Service Order - 2241 Petition, 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241), mailed to respondents on 2/17/2026. (CAM) (Entered: 02/17/2026)

Feb 17, 2026

Copy Mailed

#6

Feb 23, 2026

Notice of Appearance

#7

Feb 27, 2026

Response - not related to a motion

#8

Mar 06, 2026

Chief District Judge Denise J. Casper: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. Having reviewed the Petition of Willian Cabral Dos Santos ("Petitioner") for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, D. 1, and Respondents' response to same, D. 7, the Court DENIES the Petition.Factual Background. Petitioner is a noncitizen from Brazil who have been living in the United States since approximately 2021. D. 1 ¶ 15. Petitioner currently resides in Massachusetts and has a wife and child who are both United States citizens. Id. ¶ 10. He currently has a pending I-130 Application for Alien Relative. Id. ¶¶ 10, 19.Petitioner arrived in the United States as a minor with his parents sometime in or around 2021. Id. ¶ 16. Following his arrival, removal proceedings were initiated against him and his parents. Id. ¶ 17. Petitioner's father filed an I-589 Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal which included Petitioner and his mother as derivative beneficiaries. Id.; D. 7-1 at 5-6. On January 18, 2023, an immigration judge denied the applications for asylum and ordered Petitioner and his parents removed from the United States to Brazil. D. 7-1 at 5-10; D. 1 ¶ 18. On November 2, 2023, the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") dismissed Petitioner's father's subsequent appeal of the decision and entered the removal order against these parties. D. 7-1 at 3-4. On March 12, 2024, Petitioner and his parents filed a motion to re-open proceedings and requested a stay of removal. D. 7-2 at 3. BIA denied the stay request on March 13, 2024 and subsequently denied the motion to re-open proceedings on January 3, 2025, concluding that it was untimely. Id. at 3-5.On January 11, 2026, the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") detained Petitioner in Massachusetts. D. 1 ¶¶ 10, 20. On January 12, 2026, Petitioner filed a § 2241 petition before another session of this Court, which he subsequently voluntarily dismissed without prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). Dos Santos v. Wesling et al., 26-cv-10123-JEK (D. Mass. Jan. 27, 2026), D. 13. Petitioner filed the present Petition on February 13, 2026. D. 1. He is currently detained at the Plymouth County Correctional Facility in Plymouth, Massachusetts. Id. ¶ 10. Discussion. Petitioner brings this § 2241 Petition to challenge "any potential transfer from the Plymouth County Correctional Facility in Massachusetts to any facility located outside the District of Massachusetts or the New England region." D. 1 ¶ 1, and alternatively asks for release from detention in the event the Court " determines that the preventive relief... is insufficient," id. ¶ 9. The Petition must be denied for several reasons.First, the Court lacks jurisdiction to grant Petitioner's requested relief with respect to transfer. "Section 2241 provides federal courts with jurisdiction 'to order the release of any person who is held in the custody of the United States in violation of the "laws... of the United States’ or the United States Constitution." Vasquez v. Moniz, 788 F. Supp. 3d 177, 180 (D. Mass. 2025) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c))). The Court's habeas jurisdiction is, however, "limited" to "only that power authorized by Constitution and statute." Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., Inc., 545 U.S. 546, 552 (2005) (internal citation omitted). In particular, writs of habeas corpus under § 2241 "can be used only to request release from custody," Benito Vasquez v. Moniz, 788 F. Supp. 3d 177, 182 (D. Mass. 2025) (citing Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 78, (2005)), and are thus "not appropriate vehicles to challenge the circumstances of confinement... including a prisoner's location of custody." Id. (internal citations omitted).Here, as Respondents note, D. 7 at 3-4, a request to prevent transfer "is outside the scope of this Court's habeas jurisdiction," Da Silva v. Baptiste, No. 25-cv-12754-BEM (D. Mass. Oct. 30, 2025), D. 9 (Gonzalez-Fuentes v. Molina, 607 F.3d 864, 873 (1st Cir. 2010)). Although some courts have found that in certain, extreme circumstances, an out-of-state transfer may violate a detainee's right to assistance of counsel in removal proceeding, see, e.g., Phetsadakone v. Scott, No. 25-cv-01678-JNW, 2025 WL 2579569, at *4 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 5, 2025); Chang Barrios v. Shepley, No. 25-cv-00406-JAW, 2025 WL 2280453, at *1-3 (D. Me. Aug. 8, 2025); Bolanos v. Arnott, No. 25-cv-3380-MDH, 2025 WL 3641577, at *1-2 (W.D. Mo. Dec. 16, 2025), those cases involved circumstances where a petitioner was subject to "repeated transfers of [their] physical person and corresponding transfers of [their] immigration proceedings," Bolanos, 2025 WL 3641577, at *1, transfer outside the country, Phetsadakone, 2025 WL 2579569, at *1-4, and the government's refusal to help their counsel "locate and communicate with [the petitioner]," and to disclose where the petitioner was being held, Chang Barrios, 2025 WL 2280453, at *3. Petitioner has not alleged that any such circumstances are present here. Accordingly, the Court lacks jurisdiction to grant the requested relief with respect to preventing Petitioner's transfer outside of New England in the Petition. See Benito Vasquez, 788 F. Supp. 3d at 182.Second, even if the Court has jurisdiction to grant relief as to transfer, Petitioner's transfer claims are not ripe as Petitioner neither alleges nor is there any indication on the record that his transfer outside of New England is imminent. See Mass. Ass’n of Afro-Am. Police, Inc. v. Bos. Police Dep’t, 973 F.2d 18, 20 (1st Cir. 1992) (noting that “[t]he critical question concerning fitness for review is whether the claim involves uncertain and contingent events that may not occur as anticipated, or indeed may not occur at all"). Similarly, his claims that his due process rights and rights under the INA would be violated upon a transfer outside of New England are likewise unripe. Petitioner offers no allegations to support his assertions that a transfer outside of New England would deprive him of access to counsel. Accordingly, his Petition seeking relief from transfer are also not ripe for judicial review.Third, as to release, D. 1 ¶ 9, Petitioner does not appear to advance any arguments regarding his detention, see id. ¶¶ 22-24. To the extent that he does, as Petitioner is subject to a final order of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1), D. 1 ¶ 18; D. 7-1 at 3-4; see 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(2) (mandating that "the Attorney General shall detain the alien" effectuate the removal order), and has been detained pursuant to § 1231(a) for less than ninety days, D. 1 ¶¶ 10, 20; see 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1) (explaining that "when an alien is ordered removed, the Attorney General shall remove the alien from the United States within a period of 90 days"); see also D. 7 at 7-9, without any further allegations suggesting otherwise, the Court concludes that Petitioner is not entitled to release from detention. Accordingly, Petitioner's release request also fails on the merits.For the aforementioned reasons, the Court DENIES the Petition. D. 1.(LMH) (Entered: 03/06/2026)

#9

Mar 06, 2026

Order Dismissing Case

Mar 06, 2026

Order