District of Massachusetts • 1:25-cv-13642

#1

Dec 02, 2025

Emergency PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) Filing fee: $ 5, receipt number AMADC-11391553 Fee status: Filing Fee paid., filed by Ricardo Alves Dantas. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Category Form)(Cerretani, Gabriela) (Entered: 12/02/2025)

#2

Dec 02, 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 M. Page Kelley. (JKK) (Entered: 12/02/2025)

#3

Dec 02, 2025

Chief District Judge Denise J. Casper: ORDER entered. ORDER CONCERNING SERVICE OF PETITION AND STAY OF TRANSFER OR REMOVAL.(SEC) (Entered: 12/02/2025)

Dec 02, 2025

Notice of Case Assignment

#4

Dec 05, 2025

Notice of Appearance

#5

Dec 16, 2025

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

#6

Dec 23, 2025

Chief District Judge Denise J. Casper: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. Having reviewed the petition for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (the "Petition") filed by Petitioner Ricardo Alves Dantas ("Petitioner"), D. 1, and Respondents' response to same, D. 5, 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), 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)(1). 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 by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”). D. 1 ¶¶ 1, 7; D. 5-1 ¶ 5. While Petitioner alleged at the time of filing the Petition that he was in detention at the ICE Boston Field Office in Burlington, Massachusetts, D. 1 ¶ 7, ICE indicates that Petitioner is now detained at Plymouth County Correctional Facility, D. 5-1 ¶¶ 5, 19. Petitioner entered the United States without inspection in approximately April or May 2021. D. 1 ¶¶ 1, 14; D. 5-1 ¶ 7. Shortly thereafter, U.S. Customs and Border Protection arrested Petitioner and issued him a Notice and Order of Expedited Removal. D. 5-1 ¶ 8. Petitioner claimed a fear of return to Brazil and was referred to U.S. Citizenship and Information Services for a credible fear interview. Id. ¶¶ 9-10. Several weeks later, ICE released Petitioner pursuant to a Form I-220A order of release on recognizance. Id. ¶ 11. The order of release on recognizance required Petitioner to comply with certain conditions, including to abstain from violating "any local, State, or Federal laws or ordinances," and warned that failure to comply could result in revocation of release. Id. ¶¶ 12-13. After his release, Petitioner traveled to Massachusetts, where he has since resided. D. 1 ¶¶ 1, 15. On August 8, 2025, Petitioner was cited for a motor vehicle violation. D. 5-1 ¶ 14. On October 21, 2025, Petitioner failed to appear for a credible fear hearing. Id. ¶ 15. On or around December 2, 2025, ICE arrested and detained Petitioner pursuant to a Form I-200 Warrant for Arrest of Alien. Id. ¶¶16-17; see D. 1 ¶ 16. ICE also referred Petitioner for a credible fear interview. D. 5-1 ¶ 17.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 ¶¶ 2-3. 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. ¶¶ 21-26, and is contrary to statute, id. ¶¶ 27-39. He seeks a bond hearing. Id. ¶¶ 4, 17. Discussion. The Petition challenges Petitioner's detention in this district and seeks relief from same. Id. at 8. 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").Congress has allowed for "expedited removal" of noncitizens in some circumstances, without full removal proceedings. See 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1). A noncitizen subject to expedited removal "can avoid expedited removal by claiming asylum." Dep't of Homeland Sec. v. Thuraissigiam, 591 U.S. 103, 109 (2020). In such cases, the Immigration and Nationality Act contemplates detention pending a credible fear determination. Id. at 111; see 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1)(B)(iii)(IV).Respondents acknowledge that "an applicant for admission is not entitled to release or a bond hearing by statute or regulation" but that the Department of Homeland Security "has discretion to parole applicants for admission from custody" pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5). D. 5 at 6; see Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281, 288 (2018) (recognizing that such parole is permissible for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit). Although Respondents are correct, it appears they did not follow this process for Petitioner, as he was instead released on an order of release on recognizance, D. 5 at 7; see De Andrade v. Moniz, No. 25-cv-12455-FDS, 2025 WL 2841844, at *1 (D. Mass. Oct. 7, 2025) (noting that "in apparent violation of [8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1)], which requires mandatory detention," petitioner originally placed in expedited removal proceedings was "released on conditional parole under § 1226(a)"). Indeed, other courts have recognized that release on recognizance is a form of conditional parole under 8 U.S.C. § 1226, id.; see Lopez Benitez v. Francis, 795 F. Supp. 3d 475, 485 (S.D.N.Y. 2025); Huaman-Rodriguez v. Lynch, No. 25-cv-1330, 2025 WL 3267768, at *7 (W.D. Mich. Nov. 24, 2025) (noting that "§ 1226 is the only basis for" for an order of release on recognizance). Here, because Respondents elected to conditionally parole Petitioner under § 1226, they have "extinguished the legal fiction" that he is an applicant for admission under § 1225, and neither Respondents nor the Court can "now turn back the clock." De Andrade, 2025 WL 2841844, at *5-6. Accordingly, and 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), the Court agrees with Petitioner that his custody is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), under which he is entitled to a bond hearing. To the extent Respondents contend that Petitioner has violated the conditions of his release, they have advanced no argument that any alleged violation compels a different conclusion here. See, e.g., Tinoco v. Noem, No. 25-cv-01762-DC-JDP (HC), 2025 WL 3567862, at *6 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 14, 2025) (ordering release of habeas petitioner where petitioner allegedly violated conditions of an order of release on recognizance but "no neutral arbiter under section 1226 has determined whether those facts show that [p]etitioner is a flight risk or danger to the community").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), 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)(1). 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. (LMH) (Entered: 12/23/2025)

Dec 23, 2025

Order

#7

Dec 30, 2025

Status Report

#8

Jan 05, 2026

Chief District Judge Denise J. Casper: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. In the respondents' status report (filed Dec. 30, 2025), the parties assent to extending the deadlines that the Court set in D. 6 in light of the Executive Branch's closure on 12/24 and 12/26. The Court ALLOWS that request nunc pro tunc and revises D. 6 to order that the Respondents hold a bond hearing/individual custody redetermination by January 9, 2026 and the Respondents file a status report within ten days of this Order regarding the outcome of that hearing. All other provisions of D. 6 shall stand.(LMH) (Entered: 01/05/2026)

Jan 05, 2026

Order

#9

Jan 09, 2026

Status Report