District of Massachusetts • 1:26-cv-11603

#1

Apr 06, 2026

Emergency PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) Filing fee: $ 5, receipt number AMADC-11658630 Fee status: Filing Fee paid., filed by Altieris Chaves Paiva. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Category Form, # 3 Exhibit 1 - Notice to Appear, # 4 Exhibit 2 - Form I-220A)(Cerretani, Gabriela) (Entered: 04/06/2026)

#2

Apr 06, 2026

EXHIBIT re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241), Exh 3 - Form I-200 Warrant by Altieris Chaves Paiva. (Cerretani, Gabriela) (Entered: 04/06/2026)

#3

Apr 06, 2026

EXHIBIT re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241), Exh 4 - Form I-286 Custody Determination by Altieris Chaves Paiva. (Cerretani, Gabriela) (Entered: 04/06/2026)

#4

Apr 06, 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 Donald L. Cabell. (SEC) (Entered: 04/06/2026)

#5

Apr 06, 2026

Chief District Judge Denise J. Casper: ORDER entered. ORDER CONCERNING SERVICE OF PETITION AND STAY OF TRANSFER OR REMOVAL. (SEC) (Entered: 04/06/2026)

Apr 06, 2026

Notice of Case Assignment

#6

Apr 07, 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: 04/07/2026)

#7

Apr 20, 2026

Notice of Appearance

#8

Apr 20, 2026

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

#9

Apr 24, 2026

Chief District Judge Denise J. Casper: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241). Having considered the Petition of Altieris Chaves Paiva ("Petitioner") for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, D. 1, and the government's response, D. 8, the Court ALLOWS the Petition to the following extent. As Respondents acknowledge, id. at 1, "the legal issues presented in this Petition are similar to those recently addressed by this Court in Dias De Carvalho v. Hyde," id.; see Order, Dias De Carvalho v. Hyde et al., No. 25-cv-12677-DJC (D. Mass. Nov. 4, 2025), D. 14 and cases cited. Consistent with the Court's ruling in Dias De Carvalho and Da Silva, 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) and not 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) (which provides for mandatory detention for "applicants for admission"), as Respondents contend, D. 8 at 2 n.2; see Dias De Carvalho, No. 25-cv-12677-DJC (D. Mass. Nov. 4, 2025), D. 14 and cases cited; Matheus Araujo Da Silva v. Bondi et al., No. 25-cv-12672-DJC, 2025 WL 2969163, at *2 (D. Mass. Oct. 21, 2025) and cases cited. Thus, Petitioner is entitled to a bond hearing. Accordingly, the Court ALLOWS the Petition insofar as it sought a bond hearing/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 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. To the extent that Respondents’ response alternatively sought other relief (i.e., dismissal of the Petition given the class certified in Guerrero Orellana v. Moniz, 25-cv-12664-PBS, D. 8 at 2), the Court DENIES that request.(SEC) (Entered: 04/24/2026)

Apr 24, 2026

Order

#10

Apr 29, 2026

Extension of Time

#11

Apr 30, 2026

Chief District Judge Denise J. Casper: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered re 10 Assented to MOTION for Extension of Time to 5/11/2026. The Court ALLOWS the assented-to motion, D. 10, and accordingly, revises its prior Order, D. 9, that Petitioner's bond hearing shall be held by May 11, 2026, and Respondent shall file a status report, in accordance with D. 9, within five (5) days of that hearing. (SEC) (Entered: 04/30/2026)

Apr 30, 2026

Order on Motion for Extension of Time

#12

May 11, 2026

Status Report

#13

May 11, 2026

Enforce Judgment

#14

May 11, 2026

Seal

#15

May 21, 2026

Extension of Time to File Response/Reply

#16

May 27, 2026

Opposition to Motion

#17

Jun 09, 2026

Chief District Judge Denise J. Casper: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered ALLOWING 14 MOTION to Seal Motion to Permit Filing Under Seal of Petitioner's Bond Exhibits. Counsel will receive an email within twenty-four (24) hours of this order with instructions for submitting sealed documents for which leave has been granted in accordance with the Local Rules of the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts. Counsel must include - Leave to file granted on (date of order)- in the caption of the document. (SEC) (Entered: 06/09/2026)

Jun 09, 2026

Order on Motion to Seal

#18

Jun 17, 2026

Chief District Judge Denise J. Casper: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered re 15 MOTION for Extension of Time to 05/27/2026 to File Response/Reply. The Court ALLOWS the motion for extension to file an opposition by May 27, 2026 nunc pro tunc and the Court has considered that opposition, D. 16, in the consideration of Petitioner's pending motion, D. 13. (SEC) (Entered: 06/17/2026)

#19

Jun 17, 2026

Chief District Judge Denise J. Casper: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered re 13 MOTION to Enforce Judgment Motion to Enforce Order. The Court has reviewed Petitioner's "motion to enforce judgment," D. 13, in which he contends that the bond hearing provided to him by Respondents, see D. 12, pursuant to this Court's Order, D. 9, did not comport with the due process requirements elucidated in Hernandez-Lara v. Lyons, 10 F.4th 19 (1st Cir. 2021) because the Immigration Judge ("IJ"): "(1) relied on uncorroborated foreign investigative narratives in an Interpol Red Notice to find dangerousness by clear and convincing evidence; (2) failed to meaningfully engage with Petitioner's substantial evidentiary submission, including a Brazilian Federal Police certificate of no criminal convictions and the issuing Brazilian court's April 28, 2026 order revoking the warrant and directing that the INTERPOL Red Notice be immediately removed; and (3) failed to consider any alternatives to detention," D. 13 at 1-2. Having reviewed Petitioner's papers, D. 13, and Respondents' opposition, D. 16, the Court DENIES the motion, D. 13.As a preliminary matter, the government argues that the Court should deny Petitioner's motion to enforce judgment on the ground that "Petitioner does not allege that he has exhausted administrative remedies." D. 16 at 2. As the government acknowledges, "no statute requires exhaustion here." Id.; see Miti v. Moniz, No 26-11327-BEM, 2026 WL 884639, at *5 (D. Mass. Mar. 31, 2026). Accordingly, the "more permissive" common-law exhaustion standard applies. Brito v. Garland, 22 F.4th 240, 256 (1st Cir. 2021). "In line with the weight of the caselaw among district courts in this circuit, the Court holds that Petitioner need not exhaust an appeal to the BIA on his due process challenge given the irreparable harm caused by his allegedly unlawful and ongoing detention." Ganzhi v. Moniz, No. 26-cv-11478-PBS, 2026 WL 1194941, at *1 (D. Mass. May 1, 2026) (collecting cases); see Reyes Vargas v. Warden, Plymouth Cnty. Corr. Facility et al., No. 26-cv-11740-AK, 2026 WL 1453510, at *4 (D. Mass. May 22, 2026) (concluding that administrative exhaustion is not required under similar circumstances). The Court, thus, proceeds to the merits.At a bond hearing, the government bears the burden of proving "by clear and convincing evidence that [a noncitizen] poses a danger to the community or [] prove by a preponderance of the evidence that [the noncitizen] poses a flight risk." Hernandez-Lara, 10 F.4th at 41. "[C]ourts in the First Circuit have reviewed immigration judges' bond determinations for compliance with this constitutionally mandated burden of proof" for these respective determinations. Hernandez-Azuaje v. Hyde, No. 25-cv-13224-ADB, 2026 WL 221833, at *1 (D. Mass. Jan. 28, 2026); see Diaz Ortiz v. Smith, 384 F. Supp. 3d 140, 142 (D. Mass. 2019) (noting that a court retains habeas jurisdiction to review compliance with its prior order conditionally granting habeas relief). "To show that an immigration judge failed to apply the correct standard, a noncitizen must either 'point to the language of the immigration judge's opinion or demonstrate that "the evidence itself could not—as a matter of law—have supported" the immigration judge's decision to deny bond.'" Hernandez-Azuaje, 2026 WL 221833, at *1 (quoting Diaz Ortiz, 384 F. Supp. 3d at 143 (internal citation omitted)). "Given the highly circumscribed nature of judicial review in this context, courts cannot override an immigration judge's bond decision simply because they 'might have reached a different result if considering the issue de novo or in the context of a bail review in a criminal case.'" Hernandez-Azuaje, 2026 WL 221833, at *1 (quoting Massingue v. Streeter, No. 19-cv-30159, 2020 WL 1866255, at *5 (D. Mass. Apr. 14, 2020)). "Rather, habeas relief is appropriate only if the immigration judge's 'exercise of discretion in denying bond was so arbitrary that it would offend fundamental tenets of due process.'" Id. (quoting Diaz Ortiz, 384 F. Supp. 3d at 144).Here, the Court concludes that Petitioner's challenges to the IJ's dangerousness and flight risk determinations fail on the merits. Although the Court does not have a transcript of the bond hearing, Petitioner provides an account of the bond hearing, D. 13 at 2-4, of which the government does not appear to challenge the accuracy, see D. 16. That account states that, as to dangerousness, "DHS pointed to (1) a Brazilian arrest warrant for homicide, (2) the INTERPOL Red Notice, (3) the fact that Petitioner has been indicted in Brazil, and (4) Petitioner's 2024 Massachusetts arrest for OUI," and "argued that Petitioner is an 'obvious danger' because he has been 'accused of killing someone' and, 'on the run here,... committed crimes.'" D. 13 at 3. As to flight risk, "DHS argued that Petitioner's entry into the United States occurred after the alleged homicide and was therefore 'not a coincidence,' that 'no relief will be successful,' and that Petitioner has demonstrated he lacks 'the capability of following the law.'" Id. at 3-4. "The IJ found Petitioner 'a danger by clear and convincing evidence based on the interpol red notice,' and made 'an alternate finding of flight risk.' On flight risk, the IJ stated that the Brazilian court 'is not just "getting rid of the warrant,"' that it was 'putting [Petitioner] on another form of detention,' and that Petitioner 'left Brazil knowing he had charges.' The IJ concluded that 'no bond... will mitigate his risk based on the charges in Brazil.'" Id. at 4; see D. 16-1 at 1.Petitioner's argument that the IJ's reliance upon the Interpol red notice and Brazilian arrest warrant "is unconstitutionally insufficient," D. 13 at 5-6, and that the IJ failed to properly consider Petitioner's evidence against dangerousness, id. at 6-8, "is not [an argument] that he has been denied due process" but rather "[an] argu[ment] that the IJ's [dangerousness determination] was based on insufficient [] evidence." Dos Reis v. Vitello, No. 25-cv-10497-RGS, 2025 WL 1043434, at *2 (D. Mass. Apr. 8, 2025). "The Court does not have jurisdiction to hear such a challenge." Diaz Ortiz, 384 F. Supp. 3d at 144 (declining to hear petitioner's challenge to "the immigration judge's weighing of the evidence and exercise of discretion with respect to dangerousness"); see Dos Reis, 2025 WL 1043434, at *2 (similar as to flight risk determination). Nor can the Court conclude that "'the evidence itself could not -- as a matter of law -- have supported' the immigration judge's decision to deny bond." Diaz Ortiz, 384 F. Supp. 3d at 144 (internal citation omitted). Here, the IJ credited the government's submission of evidence, including the Interpol red notice, indictment and arrest warrant for homicide in Brazil and 2024 Massachusetts arrest for OUI and the accompanying police report, D. 13 at 3, 7; see D. 13-2. The IJ also appears to have considered Petitioner's countervailing evidence and made their determinations notwithstanding it. D. 13 at 4, 7; see D. 13-1. As to alternative forms of detention, the IJ found that "no bond... will mitigate [Petitioner's] risk based on the charges in Brazil" and noted that the Brazilian court was "putting him on another form of detention" and was "not just getting rid of the warrant." D. 13 at 8-9. "Even though the Court might, on direct review (and with the benefit of more information and context), weigh this evidence differently, it cannot say that the immigration judge's conclusion that it amounted to clear and convincing evidence of dangerousness [or their alternative determination that it amounted to a preponderance of evidence of flight risk] was 'so arbitrary that it would offend fundamental tenets of due process.'" Hernandez-Azuaje, 2026 WL 221833, at *2 (quoting Diaz Ortiz, 384 F. Supp. 3d at 144); see Ganzhi v. Moniz, No. 26-cv-11478-PBS, 2026 WL 1194941, at *1 (D. Mass. May 1, 2026); Orozco Mazariegos v. Moniz et al., No. 26-cv-10902-DJC (Apr. 17, 2026), D. 15.Accordingly, Petitioner's motion to enforce, D. 13, is DENIED. (SEC) (Entered: 06/17/2026)

Jun 17, 2026

Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply

Jun 17, 2026

Order on Motion to Enforce Judgment

#20

Jun 18, 2026

Notice - Other

#21

Jun 22, 2026

Chief District Judge Denise J. Casper: ORDER entered. In light of the Court's previous allowance of the Petition (D. 1 ) to the extent explained in D. 9, and the denial of Petitioner's motion to enforce, D, 19, the Court DISMISSES the Petition. (CAM) (CAM). (Entered: 06/22/2026)

Jun 22, 2026

Order