District of Massachusetts • 1:25-cv-13655

#1

Dec 03, 2025

Emergency PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) Filing fee: $ 5, receipt number AMADC-11394051 Fee status: Filing Fee paid., filed by Elder De Andrade Neves. (Attachments: # 1 Category Form, # 2 Civil Cover Sheet)(Cerretani, Gabriela) (Entered: 12/03/2025)

#2

Dec 03, 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. (LBO) (Entered: 12/03/2025)

#3

Dec 03, 2025

Chief District Judge Denise J. Casper: ORDER entered. ORDER CONCERNING SERVICE OF PETITION AND STAY OF TRANSFER OR REMOVAL. (SEC) (Entered: 12/03/2025)

#4

Dec 03, 2025

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: 12/03/2025)

Dec 03, 2025

Notice of Case Assignment

#5

Dec 08, 2025

Notice of Appearance

#6

Dec 17, 2025

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

#7

Dec 22, 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 Elder De Andrade Neves ("Petitioner"), D. 1, and Respondents' response to same, D. 6, 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)(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 at Plymouth County Correctional Facility. D. 1 ¶¶ 6, 13, 15. Petitioner entered the United States without inspection in approximately 2010 and has since lived here without encountering immigration enforcement authorities. Id. ¶¶ 13-14. On or around December 2, 2025, Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") arrested and detained Petitioner. Id. ¶ 15. 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). Id. ¶¶ 16-18. 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. ¶¶ 23-27, and is contrary to statute, id. ¶¶ 28-37. Discussion. The Petition challenges Petitioner's detention in this district and seeks relief from same. Id. at 8-9. 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. 6 at 2 n.2; see also Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281, 289 (2018) (discussing the distinction). As alleged, Petitioner was already residing in the United States for approximately fifteen years before ICE detained him. D. 1 ¶¶ 13-15. Respondents submit that this Court's prior decisions, including in Da Silva and Dias de Carvalho, are likely dispositive here. See D. 6 at 1 & n.1. Thus, the Court concludes that Petitioner is entitled to a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). 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)(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.(LMH) (Entered: 12/22/2025)

Dec 22, 2025

Order

#8

Dec 23, 2025

Status Report

#9

Dec 30, 2025

Status Report

#10

Jan 06, 2026

Order Dismissing Case