District of Massachusetts • 1:26-cv-12207

#1

May 14, 2026

PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) and Emergency MOTION for Stay of Removal Filing fee: $ 5, receipt number AMADC-11745961 Fee status: Filing Fee paid., filed by Felipe De Paula Ataide Almeida. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet Civil Cover, # 2 Category Form Category Form)(Silva, Jonatas) Modified on 5/15/2026 to modify docket text (CEH). (Entered: 05/14/2026)

#2

May 15, 2026

ELECTRONIC NOTICE of Case Assignment. District Judge Angel Kelley 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. (FGD) (Entered: 05/15/2026)

#3

May 15, 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). (CEH) (Entered: 05/15/2026)

#4

May 15, 2026

District Judge Angel Kelley: ORDER entered. Standing order Regarding Motion Practice. (CEH) (Entered: 05/15/2026)

#5

May 15, 2026

District Judge Angel Kelley: ORDER entered. Order Concerning Service of Petition, Stay of Transfer or Removal, and Required Response.(CEH) (Entered: 05/15/2026)

#6

May 15, 2026

Copy re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241), 5 Service Order - 2241 Petition emailed to AUSA Michael Sady, Rayford Farquhar, and USAMA Civil Process on 5/15/2026 at 9:24 am and mailed to All Respondents (CEH) (Entered: 05/15/2026)

May 15, 2026

Notice of Case Assignment

May 15, 2026

Copy Mailed

#7

May 19, 2026

Notice of Appearance

#8

May 19, 2026

Extension of Time to File Response/Reply

#9

May 20, 2026

District Judge Angel Kelley: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered GRANTING 8 MOTION for Extension of Time to May 26, 2026 to File Response/Reply to Habeas Petition (CEH) (Entered: 05/20/2026)

May 20, 2026

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

#10

May 26, 2026

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

#11

May 27, 2026

Appendix/Exhibit

#12

Jun 04, 2026

Memorandum & Order

#13

Jun 29, 2026

District Judge Angel Kelley: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. The Court issued an Order on June 4, 2026, granting Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. [Dkt. 12]. The Order directed the Parties to file a status report within fourteen calendar days informing the Court whether Petitioner has been granted a bond hearing. [Id.]. The deadline of June 18, 2026, has passed without an update as to Petitioner’s hearing. The Parties are hereby directed to file an update within seven (7) days of the entry of this Order regarding the status of Petitioner’s 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) bond hearing.(CEH) (Entered: 06/29/2026)

#14

Jun 29, 2026

Status Report

Jun 29, 2026

Order

#15

Jun 30, 2026

District Judge Angel Kelley: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. On June 4, 2026, this Court GRANTED Petitioner's Habeas Petition. [Dkt. 12]. On June 29, 2026, Respondents provided a Status Report indicating that Petitioner had a bond hearing and was denied bond after the Immigration Judge found he presented a danger to the community by clear and convincing evidence, and that no alternatives to detention exist that would ensure the safety of the community. [Dkt. 14]. As a result, absent objection within the next seven (7) calendar days, the Court will terminate the suit. (CEH) (Entered: 06/30/2026)

Jun 30, 2026

Order

#16

Jul 02, 2026

Status Report

#17

Jul 07, 2026

District Judge Angel Kelley: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. On June 4, 2026, the Court granted Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. [Dkt. 12]. On June 29, 2026, Respondents provided a Status Report indicating that Petitioner had a bond hearing on June 11, 2026, and was denied bond after the Immigration Judge found that he presented a danger to the community by clear and convincing evidence. [Dkt. 14]. The Immigration Judge allegedly relied on the existence of an active arrest warrant for Petitioner in Brazil in making her determination. [See Dkt. 16]. On July 2, 2026, Petitioner filed a Status Report representing that on June 17, 2026, the Brazilian court revoked his arrest warrant and concluded that continued preventive detention was no longer necessary. [Seeid.]. Petitioner contends that this revocation affects the factual predicate supporting the Immigration Judge’s bond denial, and requests that the Court direct supplemental briefing in light of these changes. [Id.].Petitioner’s request is ALLOWED. The parties are DIRECTED to submit supplemental briefing limited to addressing the impact of the revocation of the Brazilian arrest warrant on Petitioner’s custody status. Petitioner shall have seven (7) days from the entry of this Order to file a brief. Respondents shall have seven (7) days to file a response, if any.(CEH) (Entered: 07/07/2026)

Jul 07, 2026

Order

#18

Jul 14, 2026

Response to Court Order

#19

Jul 16, 2026

Response to Court Order

#20

Jul 21, 2026

District Judge Angel Kelley: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. On June 4, 2026, the Court granted Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. [Dkt. 12]. On June 29, 2026, Respondents provided a Status Report indicating that Petitioner had a bond hearing on June 11, 2026, and was denied bond after the Immigration Judge found that he presented a danger to the community by clear and convincing evidence. [Dkt. 14]. The Immigration Judge allegedly relied on the existence of an active arrest warrant for Petitioner in Brazil in making her determination. [See Dkt. 16]. On July 2, 2026, Petitioner filed a Status Report representing that on June 17, 2026, the Brazilian court revoked his arrest warrant and concluded that continued preventive detention was no longer necessary. [Seeid.]. Petitioner contends that this revocation affects the factual predicate supporting the Immigration Judge’s bond denial and requests a new bond hearing based on this material change in circumstances. [Id.]. The parties filed supplemental briefing addressing this issue in response to this Court’s Order on July 7, 2026. [Dkt. 17].Respondents argue, and the Court agrees, that Petitioner must first exhaust available administrative remedies before petitioning this Court for relief. While no statute requires exhaustion here, the Court may discretionarily require exhaustion under its common law authority. SeeRomero v. Hyde, 795 F. Supp. 3d 271, 278-79 (D. Mass. 2025). The Supreme Court has articulated three sets of circumstances under which a court may waive this requirement: (1) when “unreasonable or indefinite delay threatens unduly to prejudice the subsequent bringing of a judicial action” or “a particular plaintiff may suffer irreparable harm if unable to secure immediate judicial consideration”; (2) where “substantial doubt exists about whether the agency is empowered to grant meaningful redress”; and (3) “where there are clear, objectively verifiable indicia of administrative taint.” Id. (quoting McCarthy v. Madigan, 503 U.S. 140, 146-48 (1992)).Taking this guidance into account, the Court finds that exhaustion is appropriate here. Respondents note that the BIA regulations expressly provide for the redress that Petitioner seeks, yet he does not allege that he has pursued that path for relief. Under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.19(e), a noncitizen may seek a subsequent bond redetermination if he can show that “circumstances have changed materially since the prior bond redetermination.” This provision would presumably include the revocation of Petitioner’s arrest warrant. Thus, there is no “substantial doubt” that the agency “is empowered to grant meaningful redress.” Romero, 795 F. Supp. 3d at 279. As to the other factors, Petitioner’s Status Report does not allege that he would suffer irreparable harm, that there is unreasonable or indefinite delay, or that there is administrative taint.Accordingly, Petitioner’s 16 Request is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.(CEH) (Entered: 07/21/2026)

Jul 21, 2026

Order