District of Massachusetts • 1:26-cv-11798

#1

Apr 17, 2026

Emergency PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) Filing fee: $ 5, receipt number AMADC-11686438 Fee status: Filing Fee paid., filed by Guilherme Machado Da Silva. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Category Form)(Cerretani, Gabriela) (Entered: 04/17/2026)

#2

Apr 17, 2026

ELECTRONIC NOTICE of Case Assignment. District Judge Julia E. Kobick 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 Jennifer C. Boal. (NMC) (Entered: 04/17/2026)

#3

Apr 17, 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). (EZG) (Entered: 04/17/2026)

#4

Apr 17, 2026

District Judge Julia E. Kobick: ORDER CONCERNING SERVICE OF PETITION AND STAY OR TRANSFER OF REMOVAL entered.The answer or responsive pleading is due no later than April 24, 2026. (Attachment(s): # 1 *SEALED* Appendix) (Currie, Haley) (Entered: 04/17/2026)

#5

Apr 17, 2026

Copies of the following were mailed to Antone Moniz, David Wesling, Todd Lyons, Markwayne Mullin, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, and Todd Blanche on 4/17/2026: 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) and 4 Order Concerning Service of Petition and Stay or Transfer of Removal (Currie, Haley) (Entered: 04/17/2026)

Apr 17, 2026

Notice of Case Assignment

Apr 17, 2026

Copy Mailed

#6

Apr 23, 2026

Notice of Appearance

#7

Apr 23, 2026

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

#8

Apr 24, 2026

District Judge Julia E. Kobick: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. Petitioner Guilherme Machado Da Silva, a citizen of Brazil, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on April 17, 2026 seeking his immediate release or, alternatively, a bond hearing pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). ECF 1, ¶¶ 1-2, 5, 12 and at 7. In June 2018, he entered, and was admitted into, the United States on a B-2 visitor visa. Id. ¶¶ 1, 13-14, 19; ECF 7-1, at 1. Machado Da Silva was arrested and detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") on April 16, 2026. ECF 1, ¶ 16; ECF 7-2. He remains in ICE custody at Plymouth County Correctional Facility in Massachusetts. ECF 1, ¶¶ 1, 4-5.The respondents do not dispute that Machado Da Silva is detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226 and is therefore entitled a bond hearing pursuant to Section 1226(a) and 8 C.F.R. § 236.1(d)(1). Noncitizens "detained under Section 1226(a) have the right to request a bond hearing before an Immigration Judge, at which the government bears the burden to prove that continued detention is justified." Sampiao v. Hyde, 799 F. Supp. 3d 14, 19-20 (D. Mass. 2025). Bond may be denied only if the government "either (1) prove[s] by clear and convincing evidence that [the noncitizen] poses a danger to the community or (2) prove[s] by a preponderance of the evidence that [the noncitizen] poses a flight risk." Hernandez-Lara v. Lyons, 10 F.4th 19, 41 (1st Cir. 2021).In the respondents' view, Machado Da Silva's petition should nonetheless be denied because he has not yet requested a bond hearing and has thus failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. See ECF 7-2. But the petition alleges that the respondents have "den[ied] him an individualized bond hearing," which suggests that he indeed requested such a hearing. ECF 1, ¶ 33. The April 16, 2026 Notice of Custody Determination appended to the respondents' response does not foreclose the possibility that Machado Da Silva requested a bond hearing. See ECF 7-2. The Court is satisfied that Machado Da Silva need not further exhaust administrative remedies in order to obtain the bond hearing that, all agree, he is entitled to. See ECF 7, at 1, 6. For the foregoing reasons, Machado Da Silva's petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, ECF 1, is GRANTED. The respondents are ORDERED to provide him with a bond hearing pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within 7 days of this Order. The respondents are further ORDERED to file a status report on or before May 4, 2026, notifying the Court whether Machado Da Silva has been granted bond and released or, if his request for bond was denied, providing the reasons for that denial. (EZG) (Entered: 04/24/2026)

Apr 24, 2026

Order

#9

Apr 28, 2026

Status Report

#10

Apr 29, 2026

Enforce Judgment

#11

Apr 29, 2026

Seal

#12

Apr 30, 2026

District Judge Julia E. Kobick: ELECTRONIC ORDER granting 11 MOTION to Seal Motion to File ECF Doc.No.10 Exhs 1 and 2 under SealCounsel will receive an email within twenty-four (24) hours of this order with instructions for submitting sealed documents for which leave has been granted in accordance with the Local Rules of the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts. Counsel must include - Leave to file granted on (date of order)- in the caption of the document. (Currie, Haley) (Entered: 04/30/2026)

Apr 30, 2026

Order on Motion to Seal

#13

May 06, 2026

Opposition to Motion

#14

May 11, 2026

District Judge Julia E. Kobick: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. The respondents are ORDERED to file by May 15, 2026 a transcript of the April 27, 2026 bond hearing. (Currie, Haley) (Entered: 05/11/2026)

#15

May 11, 2026

Produce

May 11, 2026

Order

#16

May 12, 2026

District Judge Julia E. Kobick: ELECTRONIC ORDER granting 15 Assented to MOTION to Produce Audio Recording in Lieu of Transcript of Bond Hearing (Currie, Haley) (Entered: 05/12/2026)

May 12, 2026

Order on Motion to Produce

#17

May 13, 2026

Response to Court Order

#18

Jul 10, 2026

District Judge Julia E. Kobick: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered.On April 24, 2026, the Court granted petitioner Guilherme Machado da Silva’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus and ordered the respondents to provide him with a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within seven days. ECF 8 . At the April 27, 2026 bond hearing, Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Luciana Dubuc found that he was “a danger to the community by clear and convincing evidence” and denied him bond. ECF 9-1, at 1. This finding was based solely on Machado da Silva’s April 19, 2025 arrest, after which he was charged in Connecticut Superior Court with two counts for burglary in the third degree, one count for criminal mischief in the first degree, and one count for larceny in the fifth degree. ECF 10-1, at 5, 17. Machado Da Silva is accused—according to a police report prepared by the Bloomfield, Connecticut Police Department—of stealing an $800 DeWalt laser line from, and causing $4,000 in damage to the floor of, his former employer’s company on June 3, 2024. Id. at 7-10. Machado Da Silva has denied the charges, which remain pending. Id. at 13. He was released on a $2,800 bail and has appeared at all court dates in that criminal case. ECF 17, at 4:16-26, 5:04-12. Contending that his April 27, 2026 bond hearing was constitutionally inadequate, Machado da Silva now moves to enforce the Court’s prior order granting his habeas petition and requests that he be released. ECF 10 . For the reasons that follow, the Court will grant the motion and order his immediate release.The respondents argue, as a threshold matter, that the Court lacks jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(e). In pertinent part, that statute prohibits courts from reviewing “[t]he Attorney General’s discretionary judgment regarding the application of” 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and from “set[ting] aside any action or decision by the Attorney General under this section regarding the. . . denial of bond.” 8 U.S.C. § 1226(e). While “the government maintains discretion in each case to grant or deny bond,” such discretion is limited by “the constitutional restraints applicable to all government action.” Hernandez-Lara v. Lyons, 10 F.4th 19, 34 (1st Cir. 2021). Where, as here, a habeas petitioner asserts that “his detention resulted from constitutionally defective procedures,” he may “challenge those procedures.” Brito v. Garland, 22 F.4th 240, 253 (1st Cir. 2021).The respondents further contend that, by failing to appeal the IJ’s denial of bond to the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), Machado da Silva has not exhausted his administrative remedies. Exhaustion may be excused, however, where a petitioner could “‘suffer irreparable harm if unable to secure immediate judicial consideration of his claim.’” Portela-Gonzalez v. Sec’y of the Navy, 109 F.3d 74, 77 (1st Cir. 1997) (quoting McCarthy v. Madigan, 503 U.S. 140, 147 (1992)). This includes situations where “the petitione[r] remains detained” pending the exhaustion of administrative remedies. Brito, 22 F.4th at 256. Waiver of the exhaustion requirement is warranted here because Machado da Silva, who remains in the custody of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, is likely to experience irreparable harm if he is unable to seek habeas relief until the BIA decides an appeal of the IJ’s denial of bond. SeeGomes v. Hyde, 804 F. Supp. 3d 265, 272-73 (D. Mass. 2025); Sampiao v. Hyde, 799 F. Supp. 3d 14, 25-26 (D. Mass. 2025).On the merits, Machado da Silva argues, and the Court agrees, that the April 27, 2026 bond hearing violated his due process rights under the Fifth Amendment. To continue detaining Machado da Silva based on a finding of dangerousness, due process requires the government to “prove by clear and convincing evidence that [he] poses a danger to the community.” Hernandez-Lara, 10 F.4th at 41. IJ Dubuc concluded that the government had “met its burden” to show “by clear and convincing evidence” that Machado da Silva was “a danger to the community” because of a “reliable” police report with “corroborating” video footage and his “pending charges with the criminal court.” ECF 10, at 5. The government admitted into evidence the Bloomfield Police Department report, a pending case detail printout showing pending charges, and a criminal history record. See ECF 10-1. But it did not introduce into evidence any video footage or any other independent evidence to corroborate the allegations in the police report. For his part, Machado Da Silva submitted the birth certificate of his U.S. citizen daughter, his lease agreement, his 2025 tax return, a letter of support from his U.S. citizen sponsor, and thirteen other letters of support from, among others, his partner, pastor, and most recent employer. See ECF 10-2.An uncorroborated police report describing Machado da Silva’s arrest is insufficient, as a matter of law, to constitute clear and convincing evidence of dangerousness. See Zamora Luna v. Moniz, No. 26-cv-12190-JEK, ECF 15 (D. Mass. June 29, 2026) (granting motion to enforce and ordering immediate release after IJ Dubuc denied bond based on an arrest and collecting cases); Alcantara Guerrero v. Wesling, No. 26-cv-10928-JEK, ECF 26 (D. Mass. July 2, 2026) (same); Miti v. Moniz, No. 26-11327-BEM, 2026 WL 884639, at *1 (D. Mass. Mar. 31, 2026) (granting habeas petition and ordering release where IJ denied bond based only on “a police report describing a delayed allegation of misdemeanor assault, where the officers observed no physical injuries”); cf. Maurice v. Bondi, 154 F.4th 15, 22 (1st Cir. 2025) (“[A] police report, absent a conviction, must be corroborated before the [IJ] may give the report substantial weight[.]”); Rosa v. Garland, 114 F.4th 1, 17 (1st Cir. 2024) (in adjudicating adjustment of status cases, “the agency may not give ‘substantial weight’ to a police report in the absence of ‘a conviction or corroborating evidence of the allegations contained’ in the report” (quoting In Re Arreguin De Rodriguez, 21 I. & N. Dec. 38, 42 (BIA 1995))). Also insufficient is the Connecticut state court summary reflecting that Machado da Silva’s charges remain pending, because reliance on those charges “is simply additional reliance on the police report.” Rosa, 114 F.4th at 21.Nor did IJ Dubuc consider alternatives to detention. See Hernandez-Lara, 10 F.4th at 45 (“IJs must consider . . . alternative conditions of release during section 1226(a) bond hearings” (citing Hernandez v. Sessions, 872 F.3d 976, 990-91 (9th Cir. 2017))). The fact that Machado da Silva did not present any alternatives to detention at the bond hearing is irrelevant because due process requires such considerations. SeeCosta v. McDonald, No. 25-cv-13469-AK, 2026 WL 371198, at *3 (D. Mass. Feb. 10, 2026). Under the circumstances, the IJ did not afford Machado da Silva a constitutionally adequate bond hearing. See Atariguana-Buele v. Warden, Plymouth Corr. Facility, No. 26-cv-12168-LTS, 2026 WL 1825934, at *2-3 (D. Mass. June 25, 2026) (discussing prior cases in which IJ Dubuc violated petitioners’ due process rights in bond hearings by failing, among other things, to consider alternatives to detention).Accordingly, Machado da Silva’s motion to enforce, ECF 10, is GRANTED. The respondents are ORDERED to release Machado da Silva within 24 hours, by no later than 4:00 p.m. on July 11, 2026. The respondents must also file a status report by July 13, 2026 confirming their compliance with this Order. (Currie, Haley) (Entered: 07/10/2026)

Jul 10, 2026

Order on Motion to Enforce Judgment

#19

Jul 13, 2026

Status Report

#20

Jul 13, 2026

Judgment