District of Massachusetts • 1:26-cv-11484

#1

Mar 27, 2026

PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) Filing fee: $ 5, receipt number AMADC-11641311 Fee status: Filing Fee paid., filed by Brian Isaias Anyosa Giles. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, Class Action Notice, # 2 Exhibit 2, Warrant for Arrest of Alien, # 3 Category Form, # 4 Civil Cover Sheet)(Ciachurski, Julia) (Entered: 03/27/2026)

#2

Mar 30, 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 M. Page Kelley. (CM) (Entered: 03/30/2026)

#3

Mar 30, 2026

Chief District Judge Denise J. Casper: Order Entered. ORDER CONCERNING SERVICE OF PETITION AND STAY OF TRANSFER OR REMOVAL. (SEC) (Entered: 03/30/2026)

#4

Mar 30, 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). (SEC) (Entered: 03/30/2026)

Mar 30, 2026

Notice of Case Assignment

#5

Mar 31, 2026

Notice of Appearance

#6

Apr 01, 2026

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

#7

Apr 17, 2026

Chief District Judge Denise J. Casper: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241). Having reviewed the petition for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (the "Petition") filed by Petitioner Brian Isaias Anyosa Giles ("Petitioner"), D. 1, and Respondents' response to same, D. 6, the Court ALLOWS the Petition insofar as it sought a bond hearing/individualized custody redetermination before an immigration judge under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), at which the government bears the burden of proving Petitioner poses a danger to the community or flight risk, see Hernandez-Lara v. Lyons, 10 F.4th 19, 41 (1st Cir. 2021), 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 twenty-eight-year-old noncitizen from Peru currently detained in the custody of Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") at Plymouth County Correctional Facility. D. 1 ¶¶ 1-3, 25. Petitioner entered the United States without inspection in approximately September 2023. Id. ¶¶ 2, 25. In February or March 2026, Petitioner was detained by ICE. Id. ¶¶ 1, 3. Petitioner alleges that his detention is not authorized under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b), and that his custody is properly governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). Id. ¶¶ 9-17. Petitioner contends that his detention without a bond hearing is, therefore, unlawful, including because it violates his rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, id. ¶¶ 40-54, and is contrary to statute, id. ¶¶ 30-34. He seeks a bond hearing. Id. ¶ 18. Although Petitioner also alleges that he "was never served with a Form I-200, Warrant of Arrest," id. ¶¶ 35-39, and seeks immediate release from detention in light of same, id. at 10, the Court does not understand the basis for such argument in light of the Petition's inclusion of a Form I-200 that was apparently served on Petitioner, see id. ¶ 14; D. 1-2 at 1. Accordingly, the Court will not order release on this basis but instead considers Petitioner's arguments as to his detention without a bond hearing.Discussion. The Petition challenges Petitioner's detention in this district and seeks relief from same. Id. at 10-11. Accordingly, this Court has jurisdiction over the 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").Consistent with this Court's prior rulings, including and not limited to Da Silva v. Bondi, No. 25-cv-12672, 2025 WL 2969163, at *2 (D. Mass. Oct. 21, 2025), Dias de Carvalho v. Hyde, 25-cv-12677-DJC (D. Mass. Nov. 4, 2025), D. 14, and De Brito Fialho v. Baptiste, 26-cv-10950-DJC (D. Mass. Mar. 9, 2026), D. 8, 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) (which provides for mandatory detention for "applicants for admission"), as Respondents contend, see D. 6 at 1 n.1; see also Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281, 289 (2018) (discussing the distinction). Respondents submit that this Court's decisions in Dias de Carvalho and De Brito Fialho are likely dispositive here. See D. 6 at 1. Thus, the Court concludes that Petitioner is entitled to a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). For the foregoing 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), at which the government bears the burden of proving Petitioner poses a danger to the community or flight risk, see Hernandez-Lara, 10 F.4th at 41, 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. (SEC) (Entered: 04/17/2026)

Apr 17, 2026

Order