District of Massachusetts • 1:26-cv-11944

#1

Apr 29, 2026

Emergency PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) Filing fee: $ 5, receipt number AMADC-11710445 Fee status: Filing Fee paid., filed by Weliton Oliveira Rocha. (Attachments: # 1 Category Form, # 2 Civil Cover Sheet, # 3 Exhibit 1 - I-220A Order of Release on Recognizance)(Cerretani, Gabriela) (Entered: 04/29/2026)

#2

Apr 29, 2026

Chief District Judge Denise J. Casper: ORDER entered. EMERGENCY ORDER CONCERNING STAY OF TRANSFER OR REMOVAL. (RN) (Entered: 04/29/2026)

#3

Apr 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 Jessica D. Hedges. (JKK) (Entered: 04/30/2026)

#4

Apr 30, 2026

Service Order-2241 Petition

#5

Apr 30, 2026

General Order 19-02

Apr 30, 2026

Notice of Case Assignment

#6

May 06, 2026

Notice of Appearance

#7

May 06, 2026

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

#8

May 15, 2026

Chief District Judge Denise J. Casper: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241), filed by Weliton Oliveira Rocha. Having reviewed the petition for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (the "Petition") filed by Petitioner Weliton Oliveira Rocha ("Petitioner"), D. 1, and Respondents' response to same, D. 7, 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 noncitizen from Brazil currently detained in the custody of Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") at Plymouth County Correctional Facility. D. 1 ¶¶ 1-2, 7-8, 15. Petitioner alleges that he entered the United States without inspection on approximately November 1, 2021. Id. ¶¶ 1, 15, 23, 27. Although Respondents have submitted a Notice and Order of Expedited Removal that appears to be dated October 21, 2021, see 7 at 1 n.2; D. 7-1 at 1, the Order of Removal portion of the form is not executed, see D. 7-1 at 1. Petitioner alleges that he has never been subject to a final order of removal. D. 1 ¶ 19. On November 2, 2021, ICE released Petitioner pursuant to an Order of Release on Recognizance ("OREC") that invoked 8 U.S.C. § 1226. Id. ¶¶ 1, 16; D. 1-3 at 1. On approximately April 27, 2026, Petitioner was arrested in Massachusetts for operating under the influence. D. 1 ¶¶ 2, 17. Petitioner was arraigned on April 28, 2026, around which time he was detained by ICE. Id. ICE served Petitioner with an immigration arrest warrant. D. 7-1 at 2.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). D. 1 ¶¶ 3, 25. 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. ¶¶ 23-25, and is contrary to statute, id. ¶¶ 26-31. He seeks a bond hearing. Id. at 8. Discussion. The Petition challenges Petitioner's detention in this district and seeks relief from same. Id. 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), and Dias de Carvalho v. Hyde, 25-cv-12677-DJC (D. Mass. Nov. 4, 2025), D. 14, 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. 7 at 1 n.2; see also Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281, 289 (2018) (discussing the distinction). Respondents submit that this Court's decision in Dias de Carvalho is likely dispositive here. See D. 7 at 1. The Court concludes that Petitioner is entitled to a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). See Cunha v. Freden, No. 25-3141-PR, __ F.4th__, 2026 WL 1146044, at *3-4 (2d Cir. Apr. 28, 2026) (affirming that petitioner's detention "is governed by Section 1226(a) and that he is entitled to a bond hearing . . . consistent with the decisions of . . . over ninety percent of district court judges").Accordingly, 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: 05/15/2026)

May 15, 2026

Order