District of Massachusetts • 1:26-cv-13012

#1

Jun 30, 2026

PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) Filing fee: $ 5, receipt number AMADC-11855688 Fee status: Filing Fee paid., filed by Marco A. Soares de Barros. (Attachments: # 1 Category Form, # 2 Civil Cover Sheet, # 3 Exhibit IJ Order)(Romeiro, Fernanda) (Entered: 06/30/2026)

#2

Jun 30, 2026

ELECTRONIC NOTICE of Case Assignment. District Judge Leo T. Sorokin 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. (FGD) (Entered: 06/30/2026)

#3

Jun 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). (FGD) (Entered: 06/30/2026)

#4

Jun 30, 2026

District Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ORDER entered. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE.The petition in this case does not allege that Petitioner is currently detained, nor does it challenge the conditions of supervision currently governing Petitioner's release. Instead, it advances challenges to future detention Petitioner believes the respondents might pursue. Accordingly, Petitioner shall SHOW CAUSE by July 7, 2026, why the Court has jurisdiction, consistent with the INA and the traditional scope of habeas review, to resolve the claims he alleges and to grant the relief he seeks. (FGD) (Entered: 06/30/2026)

#5

Jun 30, 2026

Copy re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241), 4 Order to Show Cause, emailed to Duty AUSA and mailed to Respondents and USAO on 6/30/2026. (FGD) (Entered: 06/30/2026)

Jun 30, 2026

Copy Mailed

Jun 30, 2026

Order To Show Cause

Jun 30, 2026

Notice of Case Assignment

#6

Jul 07, 2026

Response to Order to Show Cause

#7

Jul 08, 2026

District Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. The Court has reviewed the petitioner’s show-cause submission. The Court will resolve the question of its jurisdiction after hearing from the respondents. The respondents shall file a memorandum addressing the petitioner’s positions, including: 1) whether this Court has jurisdiction over the petition based on the conditions of supervision and the threat of imminent detention cited by the petitioner; and 2) whether this Court has jurisdiction in this context to grant any of the relief sought by the petitioner in this action. The respondents’ answer is due July 15, 2026. This Court always has jurisdiction to determine its own jurisdiction, and it may preserve the status quo to permit such a determination. Thus, pending the Court’s receipt of the respondents’ submission and resolution of the question of its jurisdiction, the respondents shall not remove the petitioner from the United States or from the District of Massachusetts absent 72 hours’ written notice to the Court.(SED) (Entered: 07/08/2026)

#8

Jul 08, 2026

Copy re 7 Order emailed to Duty AUSA on 7/8/2026. (SED) (Entered: 07/08/2026)

Jul 08, 2026

Order

Jul 08, 2026

Copy Mailed

#9

Jul 15, 2026

Notice of Appearance

#10

Jul 15, 2026

Extension of Time to File Response/Reply

#11

Jul 15, 2026

District Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered: re 10 MOTION for Extension of Time to July 22, 2026 to File Response/Reply as to 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241). ALLOWED. (SED) (Entered: 07/15/2026)

Jul 15, 2026

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

#12

Jul 22, 2026

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

#13

Jul 23, 2026

District Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. Petitioner is a citizen of Brazil with a final order of removal whose application for withholding of removal to Brazil was granted in 2018. Since those orders entered, he has lived in the United States under supervision by ICE in the form of regular check-ins. Upon learning recently that ICE intends to pursue his removal to a third country (and to detain him in order to do so), Petitioner invoked 28 U.S.C. 2241 in an effort to prevent his future detention and future third-country removal. Doc. No. 1. The petition seeks nine categories of relief, including an injunction preventing ICE from detaining Petitioner and a declaration that his detention would violate federal law. Id. at 15-16. Because this Court’s jurisdiction in this context is limited, Petitioner was ordered to show cause why this Court is authorized to hear his claims and grant the relief he seeks. Doc. No. 4. After receiving Petitioner’s show-cause response, Doc. No. 6, the Court directed the respondents to address its jurisdiction as well, Doc. Nos. 7, 12.After considering both parties’ arguments, the Court concludes it lacks jurisdiction. The petition and the show-cause response make clear that Petitioner does not challenge the conditions of his present supervision by ICE. Rather, he seeks an order from the Court that would enjoin his removal “to a third country” unless the respondents do various things. See Doc. No. 6 at 10-11. The Supreme Court has made clear that this Court cannot provide such relief via its habeas jurisdiction, even assuming Petitioner’s present conditions of supervision rise to the level of “custody” for habeas purposes. SeeDep’t of Homeland Sec. v. Thuraissigiam, 591 U.S. 103, 118–19 (2020) (limiting “scope of the writ” that which “was understood when the Constitution was adopted” and rejecting its use by those seeking orders permitting them “to remain lawfully in the United States” or requiring an “opportunity to” seek “relief from removal”). “The essence of habeas corpus is an attack by a person in custody upon the legality of” executive detention, and “the traditional function of the writ is to secure release from illegal custody.” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 (1973). It is not a vehicle through which the Court may evaluate, enjoin, or render declarations concerning executive policies and actions (present or future) more generally. SeeLopez Lopez v. Charles, No. 20-cv-10145-DJC, 2020 WL 419598, at *3 (D. Mass. Jan. 26, 2020) (discussing limits on habeas jurisdiction). Presently, even if Petitioner’s detention appears imminent, whether the respondents will seek his removal without first doing the things Petitioner suggests federal law requires remains speculative. Because this Court cannot provide the relief Petitioner seeks at this time, his petition is DISMISSED. Nothing in this Order prevents Petitioner from filing a new habeas petition, should he be detained and seek to challenge the lawfulness of that detention, or a civil action challenging the policies or actions of the respondents related to Petitioner’s removal.(FGD) (Entered: 07/23/2026)

#14

Jul 23, 2026

Order Dismissing Case

Jul 23, 2026

Order