District of Massachusetts • 1:25-cv-13573

#1

Nov 25, 2025

PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) Filing fee: $ 5, receipt number AMADC-11380124 Fee status: Filing Fee paid., filed by Valeria Hincapie-Palacios. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Sheet, # 2 Civil Form, # 3 ICE DEtainer Locator)(Walsh, Christopher) (Entered: 11/25/2025)

#2

Nov 25, 2025

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: 11/25/2025)

#3

Nov 25, 2025

APPENDIX/EXHIBIT 1 by Valeria Hincapie-Palacios. (Walsh, Christopher) (Entered: 11/25/2025)

#4

Nov 25, 2025

Chief District Judge Denise J. Casper: ORDER entered. ORDER CONCERNING SERVICE OF PETITION AND STAY OF TRANSFER OR REMOVAL.(SEC) (Entered: 11/25/2025)

Nov 25, 2025

Notice of Case Assignment

#5

Nov 28, 2025

Notice of Appearance

#6

Nov 28, 2025

Miscellaneous Relief

#8

Dec 02, 2025

Notice of Appearance

#9

Dec 02, 2025

Notice of Appearance

Dec 02, 2025

Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief

#10

Dec 03, 2025

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

#11

Dec 10, 2025

Expedite

#12

Dec 10, 2025

Chief District Judge Denise J. Casper: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241). Having reviewed the Petition of Valeria Hincapie Palacio ("Petitioner") for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (the "Petition"), D. 1, and the government's response to same, D. 10, the Court ALLOWS the Petition, D. 1, insofar as it sought a bond hearing/custody redetermination under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), which the Court ORDERS within seven (7) days of this Order. Respondents are also ENJOINED from denying Petitioner bond on the basis that she 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 her request for bond was denied, the reasons for that denial.Background. Petitioner is a noncitizen from Colombia who resides in Massachusetts. D. 1 ¶¶ 1-2. On September 14, 2023, Petitioner applied for Special Immigrant Juvenile ("SIJ") status with the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services ("USCIS"). D. 3 at 1. USCIS approved her application on January 31, 2024 and Petitioner received deferred action in accordance with this approval. Id. On October 24, 2025, the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") arrested Petitioner during her regular check-in with ICE and took her into ICE custody in the District of Massachusetts. D. 1 ¶¶ 5, 7.Petitioner filed the Petition on November 25, 2025. D. 1. On December 2, 2025, the Court granted the government's assented to motion to transfer Petitioner from the Boston ICE Hold Room in Burlington, Massachusetts to Chittenden Regional Correctional Facility in South Burlington, Vermont to provide Petitioner with proper accommodations. D. 7; see D. 6. As part of the government's assented to motion to transfer, "[t]he Parties agree that the District of Massachusetts should maintain jurisdiction over Petitioner and her Petition, and that the Court’s Order Concerning Service of Petition and Stay of Transfer or Removal remains controlling at her new location." D. 6 ¶ 4; see D. 4.Discussion. As Petitioner filed her Petition when she was originally detained in the District of Massachusetts, D. 1 ¶ 7, and the parties consent to this Court's jurisdiction over this Petition, D. 6 ¶ 4, the Court concludes it has jurisdiction over the Petition. See Williams v. Warden, FCI Berlin, 786 F. Supp. 3d 436, 446 (D.N.H. 2025) (noting that "every court of appeals to have considered the issue has held in some form that the government's post-filing transfer of a § 2241 petitioner out of the court's territorial jurisdiction does not strip the court of jurisdiction over the petition") (internal quotation and quotation marks omitted) (collecting cases); see also Gonzalez v. Grondolsky, 152 F. Supp. 3d 39, 45 (D. Mass. 2016) (noting that "the[] two limits on habeas 'jurisdiction' (the immediate-custodian and territorial-jurisdiction rules) are not jurisdictional 'in the sense of subject-matter jurisdiction,' and thus likely can be waived in appropriate cases") (citing Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 434 n.7 (2004) (Kennedy, J., concurring)).As to the Petition itself, as Respondents concede in their opposition, D. 10 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. Consistent with this 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), as Respondents contend (which provides for mandatory detention for "applicants for admission"), see D. 10 at 1 n.2. Order, Dias De Carvalho v. Hyde, No. 25-cv-12677-DJC (D. Mass. Nov. 4, 2025), D. 14 and cases cited; 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 under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a).For the aforementioned reasons, the Court ALLOWS the Petition, D. 1, insofar as it sought a bond hearing/custody redetermination under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), which the Court ORDERS within seven (7) days of this Order. Respondents are also ENJOINED from denying Petitioner bond on the basis that she 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 her request for bond was denied, the reasons for that denial.(SEC) (Entered: 12/10/2025)

#13

Dec 10, 2025

Chief District Judge Denise J. Casper: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered re 11 Assented to MOTION to Expedite. In light of the Court's resolution of the Petition, D. 1, today, the Court DENIES Petitioner's motion to expedite as moot. (SEC) (Entered: 12/10/2025)

Dec 10, 2025

Order on Motion to Expedite

Dec 10, 2025

Order

#14

Dec 18, 2025

Status Report

#15

Dec 22, 2025

Order Dismissing Case