District of Massachusetts • 1:26-cv-11159

#1

Mar 06, 2026

PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241), filed by Alcides Dasilva. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Category Form)(SR) (Entered: 03/06/2026)

#2

Mar 06, 2026

Filing fee/payment: $ 5.00, receipt number 100014716 for 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) (LBO) (Entered: 03/06/2026)

#3

Mar 06, 2026

ELECTRONIC NOTICE of Case Assignment. Judge Brian E. Murphy 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: 03/06/2026)

Mar 06, 2026

Notice of Case Assignment

Mar 06, 2026

Filing Fee/Payment Received

#4

Mar 09, 2026

Service Order-2241 Petition

#5

Mar 09, 2026

Copy re 4 Service Order - 2241 Petition, 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) mailed to all respondents on 3/9/2026. (MBM) (Entered: 03/09/2026)

#6

Mar 09, 2026

Notice - Other

#7

Mar 09, 2026

Affidavit in Support

Mar 09, 2026

Copy Mailed

#8

Mar 10, 2026

Notice of Appearance

#9

Mar 10, 2026

Response to Court Order

#10

Mar 12, 2026

Notice of Appearance

#11

Mar 12, 2026

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

#12

Mar 23, 2026

Judge Brian E. Murphy: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. Because Petitioner has a pending BIA appeal per the Executive Office for Immigration Review (“EOIR”) website, Petitioner does not have a final order of removal, see 8 C.F.R. s. 1241.1, and is not subject to detention under 8 U.S.C. s. 1231(a)(2). Therefore, for Petitioner’s detention to be lawful, Petitioner must be detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. s 1225 or 8 U.S.C. s. 1226. Respondents contend that Petitioner received a bond hearing pursuant to 8 U.S.C. s. 1226(a). Dkt. 11 at 3. Petitioner contends, however, that the bond hearing was constitutionally inadequate. Dkt. 1 at 3. Respondents do not meaningfully respond to this argument. See Dkt. 11 at 8. Accordingly, Respondents are ORDERED to show cause on or before March 30, 2026 for why the petition should not be granted. (MBM) (Entered: 03/23/2026)

Mar 23, 2026

Order

#13

Mar 25, 2026

Response to Order to Show Cause

#14

Apr 03, 2026

Judge Brian E. Murphy: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. Petitioner challenges the constitutionality of his bond determination. Dkt. 1 at 3. “[F]or someone in Petitioner’s position, there are effectively two options: he can either directly attack some part of the bond process, for example, by ‘point[ing] to the language of the immigration judge’s opinion,’ or else he can inferentially argue that ‘the evidence itself could not – as a matter of law – have supported the immigration judge’s decision.’” Id. at *6 (quoting Diaz Ortiz v. Smith, 384 F. Supp. 3d 140, 143 (D. Mass. 2019)).The immigration judge found that “Respondent is a danger to the community by clear and convincing evidence.” Dkt. 13 -2 at 1. Therefore, Petitioner must show that as a matter of law, no reasonable immigration judge could have found that evidence proved by clear and convincing evidence that Petitioner is a danger to the community. See Miti, 2026 WL 884639, at *6; Diaz Ortiz, 384 F. Supp. 3d at 143. Here, where Respondents presented to the immigration judge evidence that the mother of Petitioner’s children obtained an abuse prevention order against Petitioner, Dkt. 13 -1 at 12, and that Petitioner was convicted after pleading guilty to three counts of violating an abuse prevention order, id. at 23-24, the Court finds that the evidence is not insufficient as a matter of law. Accordingly, the Petition is DENIED. (MBM) (Entered: 04/03/2026)

#15

Apr 03, 2026

Judgment

Apr 03, 2026

Order