District of Massachusetts • 1:26-cv-11176

#1

Mar 06, 2026

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus - 2241

#2

Mar 09, 2026

ELECTRONIC NOTICE of Case Assignment. Judge Indira Talwani 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 Paul G. Levenson. (CM) (Entered: 03/09/2026)

#3

Mar 09, 2026

Service Order-2241 Petition

#4

Mar 09, 2026

General Order 19-02

Mar 09, 2026

Notice of Case Assignment

#5

Mar 10, 2026

Notice of Appearance

#6

Mar 10, 2026

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

#7

Mar 12, 2026

MOTION to Withdraw 6 Response to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus - 2241, and Request to File a New Response to Petitioner's Habeas Petition by Timothy Baptiste, Patricia Hyde, Michael Krol, Todd Lyons, Antone Moniz.(Farquhar, Rayford) (Entered: 03/12/2026)

#8

Mar 12, 2026

Judge Indira Talwani: ELECTRONIC ORDER granting [ 7 ] Unopposed Motion to Withdraw Respondents' Docket No. 6 Filing and Request to File a New Response to Petitioner's Habeas Petition. The [ 6 ] Response to Habeas Petition is stricken as withdrawn and Respondents are granted leave to file a new Response. (SEC) (Entered: 03/12/2026)

Mar 12, 2026

Order on Motion to Withdraw

#9

Mar 13, 2026

Judge Indira Talwani: ELECTRONIC ORDER: On March 9, 2026, the court ordered Respondents to answer Petitioner's Petition [ 1 ] within forty-eight hours. See Order [ 3 ]. Respondents filed a timely response, but, on March 12, 2026, requested to withdraw that response and file a new one. See Mot. [ 7 ]. The court granted that request, see Order [ 8 ], but no new response has been filed. Respondents shall answer the Petition [ 1 ] no later than 4:00 p.m. today. (SEC) (Entered: 03/13/2026)

Mar 13, 2026

Order

#10

Mar 16, 2026

Judge Indira Talwani: ELECTRONIC ORDER: On March 9, 2026, the court ordered Respondents to answer Petitioner’s Petition [ 1 ] within forty-eight hours. See Order [ 3 ]. Respondents filed a timely response, but on March 12, 2026, requested to withdraw that response and file a new one. See Mot. [ 7 ]. The court granted that request. See Order [ 8 ]. Despite leave having been granted, no new response was filed. On March 13, 2026, the court directed Respondents to answer Petitioner’s Petition [ 1 ] no later than 4:00 p.m. that day. As of 2:00 p.m. today, March 16, 2026, Respondents have yet to file their new response.Accordingly, the court GRANTS the Petition [ 1 ] as unopposed. Pending further order, Respondents shall not transfer Petitioner outside the District of Massachusetts but may release Petitioner from immigration custody on bond or conditions. A status report shall be filed no later than March 19, 2026. (SEC) (Entered: 03/16/2026)

Mar 16, 2026

Order

#11

Mar 20, 2026

Status Report

#12

Mar 23, 2026

Status Report

#13

Apr 03, 2026

Notice of Appearance

#14

Apr 03, 2026

Notice - Other

#15

Apr 11, 2026

Injunctive Relief

#16

Apr 13, 2026

Opposition to Motion

#17

Apr 16, 2026

Judge Indira Talwani: ELECTRONIC ORDER: On March 9, 2026, the court ordered Respondents, inter alia, to respond within forty-eight hours to Petitioner Gilberto Jacinto-Da Silva’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [ 1 ], to not transfer Petitioner from the District of Massachusetts without three days-notice, and to not remove Petitioner from the United States until further order of the court. Order Concerning Service of Pet. and Stay of Transfer or Removal ¶¶ 2, 4 [ 3 ]. On March 16, 2026, the court granted the Petition [ 1 ] as unopposed and ordered that Respondents “may release Petitioner from immigration custody on bond or conditions.” Elec. Order [ 10 ].Petitioner received a bond hearing on March 23, 2026. Pet.’s Status Rep. 1 [ 12 ]; Resp’ts’ Status Rep. 1 [ 11 ]. At the hearing, the Immigration Judge denied bond, finding that Petitioner “is a flight risk by a preponderance of the evidence and there is no bond amount that will mitigate his risk of flight.” Pet.’s Status Rep. 4 [ 12 ].Both sides now seek further relief. The government states that, where Petitioner “is subject to a reinstated removal order, received a negative reasonable fear determination from the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service which he did not request an Immigration Judge to review, and the case has now been returned to [Enforcement and Removal Operations] to effectuate removal[,]” the government intends to remove Petitioner to Brazil. Not. of Intent to Transfer Pet. to Effectuate Removal 1 [ 14 ]. The government has therefore requested that the court vacate its Order Concerning Service of Petitioner and Stay of Transfer or Removal [ 3 ]. Not. of Intent. 1 [ 14 ].Petitioner opposes that request and seeks an order from the court “(1) maintaining the stay of removal, and (2) ordering [Petitioner’s] immediate release from custody.” Emergency Mot. for Immediate Release and to Maintain Stay of Removal 1 [ 15 ]. Petitioner states that he “faces imminent removal from the United States. . . which will result in irreparable harm and will effectively frustrate this Court’s jurisdiction[;] [r]emoval at this stage would, as a practical matter, extinguish the present habeas corpus action and deprive Petitioner of meaningful judicial review[; and] [i]mmediate intervention is therefore necessary to preserve the integrity of this Court’s jurisdiction.” Id. at 1 ¶ 1–2 ¶ 3. Respondents oppose Petitioner’s motion. See Resp’ts’ Opp’n 1 [ 16 ].To the extent Petitioner seeks review of the Immigration Judge’s denial of bond on March 23, 2026, this court lacks the jurisdiction to do so. See 8 U.S.C. § 1226(e) (“No court may set any action or decision by the Attorney General under this section regarding. . . the revocation or denial of bond or parole.”). If Petitioner seeks such review, he may do so before the Board of Immigration Appeals. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.38(a) (“Decisions of Immigration Judges may be appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals[.]”); id. § 1003.19(f) (“An appeal from the determination by an Immigration Judge [with respect to custody status or bond redetermination] may be taken to the Board of Immigration Appeals[.]”). To the extent Petitioner asserts that this court must bar his removal to protect the court’s habeas jurisdiction, that argument fails where the court has exercised its jurisdiction to ensure Petitioner’s bond hearing, see Elec. Order [ 10 ], and the court has no further jurisdiction over this matter. Accordingly, Petitioner’s Emergency Motion [ 15 ] is DENIED. The court’s Order Concerning Service of Petitioner and Stay of Transfer or Removal [ 3 ] is VACATED. (SEC) (Entered: 04/16/2026)

Apr 16, 2026

Order on Motion for Injuctive Relief