District of Massachusetts • 1:25-cv-13739

#1

Dec 08, 2025

First PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) Filing fee: $ 5, receipt number AMADC-11403172 Fee status: Filing Fee paid., filed by Yoelfry Tejada Garcia. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet civil cover sheet)(McGee, Molly) (Entered: 12/08/2025)

#2

Dec 08, 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 Paul G. Levenson. (JAM) (Entered: 12/08/2025)

#3

Dec 08, 2025

Service Order-2241 Petition

#4

Dec 08, 2025

General Order 19-02

Dec 08, 2025

Notice of Case Assignment

#5

Dec 11, 2025

Notice of Appearance

#6

Dec 17, 2025

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

#7

Dec 17, 2025

Exhibit

#8

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 Yoelfry Tejada Garcia ("Petitioner"), D. 1, and Respondents' response to same, D. 6, the Court ALLOWS the Petition insofar as it sought any relief this Court deemed just and proper and ORDERS a bond hearing/individualized custody redetermination before an immigration judge under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) 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 the Dominican Republic and resident of Lawrence, Massachusetts. D. 1 ¶¶ 1, 9; see D. 7 at 4. Petitioner fled the Dominican Republic due to persecution and entered the United States. Id. ¶ 7. Petitioner has been married to a United States citizen since December 29, 2022 and, on March 23, 2023, Petitioner's spouse filed a petition for alien relative, Form I-130, with the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services ("USCIS"). See D. 1 ¶ 8; D. 7 at 6, 8. Petitioner filed an application for asylum with USCIS, which has been pending since August 29, 2023. D. 1 ¶ 7; see D. 7 at 10, 12. On or about December 7, 2025, Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") agents detained Petitioner at the ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations ("ICE/ERO") Office in Burlington, Massachusetts. D. 1 ¶¶ 1, 14. Petitioner alleges his detention is unlawful because it violates his right rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and he seeks immediate release and any further relief this Court deems just and proper. Id. at 3.Discussion. The Petition challenges Petitioner's detention in this district and seeks relief from same. Id. at 3. 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-DJC, 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 concludes that Petitioner's 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 1 n.2; see also Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281, 289 (2018) (discussing the distinction). In the present case, the Petitioner was already residing in the United States when ICE arrested him. See D. 1 ¶¶ 6, 9, 14. Respondents acknowledge that this Court's decision in Dias de Carvalho is likely dispositive here. See D. 6 at 1 & n.1. For the foregoing reasons, the Court concludes as follows. The Court ALLOWS the Petition, D. 1, insofar as it sought any “relief this Court deemed just and proper,” D. 1 at 3, and ORDERS a bond hearing/individualized custody redetermination before an immigration judge under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) 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

#9

Dec 30, 2025

Status Report

#10

Jan 06, 2026

Order Dismissing Case