District of Massachusetts • 1:26-cv-12457

#1

Jun 01, 2026

PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) Filing fee: $ 5, receipt number AMADC-11780402 Fee status: Filing Fee paid., filed by Juan Lucas Pereira Da Silva. (Attachments: # 1 Category Form Category Form, # 2 Civil Cover Sheet Civil Cover Sheet)(Binnall, Jacob) (Entered: 06/01/2026)

#2

Jun 01, 2026

ELECTRONIC NOTICE of Case Assignment. Judge George A. OToole, Jr 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. (SP) (Entered: 06/01/2026)

#3

Jun 01, 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). (CM) (Entered: 06/01/2026)

#4

Jun 01, 2026

Judge George A. OToole, Jr: ORDER entered. SERVICE ORDER re 2241 Petition. Order entered pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2243 governing Section 2241 cases for service on respondents. The answer or responsive pleading is due no later than 14 days from receipt of this order.(CM) (Entered: 06/01/2026)

Jun 01, 2026

Notice of Case Assignment

#5

Jun 02, 2026

Copy re 4 Service Order - 2241 Petition, emailed to Duty AUSA on 6/1/2026 and mailed to Respondents on 6/2/2026. (FGD) (Entered: 06/02/2026)

#6

Jun 02, 2026

NOTICE of Appearance by Vincent Engingro, III on behalf of Todd Blanche, Patricia Hyde, Todd M Lyons, Antone Moniz, Markwayne Mullin (Engingro, Vincent) (Entered: 06/02/2026)

Jun 02, 2026

Copy Mailed

#7

Jun 15, 2026

Extension of Time to File Response/Reply

Jun 17, 2026

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

#9

Jun 18, 2026

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

Jul 08, 2026

Notice of Hearing

Jul 22, 2026

Telephone Conference

#12

Aug 05, 2026

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

#13

Aug 06, 2026

Judge George A. O’Toole, Jr: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. The petitioner shall file any reply to the Respondents’ Opposition to the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (dkt. no. 12 ) by August 20, 2026. The parties are reminded that the Court’s June 1, 2026, Order that “the petitioner shall not be moved outside the District of Massachusetts without providing the Court 48 hours’ advance notice of the move and the reason therefor” remains in effect (dkt. no. 4 ¶ 3). (FGD) (Entered: 08/06/2026)

Aug 06, 2026

Order

#14

Aug 11, 2026

Response - not related to a motion

#15

Sep 02, 2026

Judge George A. OToole, Jr: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. Juan Lucas Pereira Da Silva has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241—his second such petition before this Court—arguing that his continued civil detention by federal immigration authorities is unlawful. See Aguilar v. ICE, 510 F.3d 1, 11 (1st Cir. 2007) (explaining that district courts “retain jurisdiction” over habeas petitions by noncitizens who seek to challenge “the legality of [their] detention in the immigration context”). The Court determined, in connection with Pereira Da Silva’s first petition, that 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1) is the statutory authority that governs his present detention. See Op. & Order at 8, Pereira Da Silva v. Moniz, 25-cv-10446-GAO (D. Mass. May 4, 2025) (Dkt. No. 16). The Court notes that the recent ruling in Guerrero Orellana v. Moniz, No. 25-2152, 2026 WL 2352042 (1st Cir. Aug. 13, 2026), concerns 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2), and therefore does not mandate a different result.The petitioner has been detained since November 28, 2025, the same day he was arraigned in separate state proceedings in the Massachusetts District Court in Framingham, Massachusetts, on one count of Assault and Battery on a Family or Household Member in violation of Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 265, Section 13M. That charge has since been dismissed. On July 6, 2026, an immigration judge (“IJ”) ordered the petitioner removed, and on August 4, 2026, the petitioner filed with the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) a Notice of Appeal of that removal order.By his petition presently before the Court, Pereira Da Silva urges the Court to order his immediate release or, in the alternative, to direct the respondents to provide him “an individualized custody hearing before a neutral adjudicator at which [the government] bear[s] the burden of justifying [the petitioner’s] continued detention by clear and convincing evidence.” (Pet’r’s Reply in Supp. of Pet. for Writ of Habeas Corpus at 19 (dkt. no. 14) (citing Hernandez-Lara v. Lyons, 10 F.4th 19 (1st Cir. 2021); Brito v. Garland, 22 F.4th 240 (1st Cir. 2021)).) The petitioner argues that he is entitled to such relief because he has been in custody for nine months, “with at least a year more in prospect,” and thus his continued detention has become “unreasonably prolonged.” (Id. at 1.) In support of that argument, the petitioner emphasizes that the BIA disposed of 35,362 appeals in fiscal year 2025, whereas more than 200,000 appeals remain pending before that administrative body. The petitioner also avers that, subject to the disposition of his BIA appeal, remand to the IJ or further direct review before a circuit court court may result in a period of “total confinement” that “will approach or exceed two years.” (Id. at 12.)Pereira Da Silva further posits that he is entitled to relief on the independent grounds that the government has not complied with the regulations that it now invokes in arguing that he remains subject to mandatory detention. That is so, Pereira Da Silva contends, because nothing in the record evinces that the government has complied with the regulatory requirements of 8 C.F.R. § 212.5, which requires an authorized government “official” to opine that “the public interest requires that [the petitioner] be continued in custody.” (Id. at 14 (quoting 8 C.F.R. § 212.5(e)(2)(i)).)On the record before the Court, it appears that Pereira Da Silva’s present custody does not comply with the express regulatory requirements of § 212.5(e)(2)(i). Moreover, that omission is material here, where the record indicates that: (1) the petitioner has previously been paroled under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5)(A), (2) the pending criminal charge against him has been dismissed, and (3) the petitioner has shown, for the reasons discussed above, that his removal order likely “cannot be executed within a reasonable time,” see 8 C.F.R. § 212.5(e)(2)(i).Accordingly, unless the government demonstrates that it has complied with the regulatory requirements of 8 C.F.R. § 212.5 within fourteen (14) days of this Order, (see June 1, 2026, Order ¶ 3 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a)(2)(C) (dkt. no. 4)), the petitioner shall be released.It is SO ORDERED.(FGD) (Entered: 09/02/2026)

Sep 02, 2026

Order

#16

Sep 16, 2026

Response to Court Order

#17

Sep 16, 2026

Response - not related to a motion

#18

Sep 27, 2026

Emergency MOTION to Expedite Ruling on Motion to Enforce (ECF No. 17), Emergency MOTION for Order to Enforce the September 2, 2026 Order and Release Petitioner Immediately ( Responses due by 10/13/2026) by Juan Lucas Pereira Da Silva. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Attorney Jacob Binnall, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Binnall, Jacob) (Entered: 09/27/2026)

#19

Sep 29, 2026

ELECTRONIC NOTICE Setting Hearing on Motion 18 Emergency MOTION to Expedite Ruling on Motion to Enforce (ECF No. 17)Emergency MOTION for Order to Enforce the September 2, 2026 Order and Release Petitioner Immediately : Motion Hearing set for 10/6/2026 12:00 PM in Courtroom 22 (In person only) before Judge George A. OToole Jr. The government shall file any response to the petitioners Emergency Motion for Order to Enforce (dkt. no. 18 ) by October 1, 2026.(TRM) (Entered: 09/29/2026)

Sep 29, 2026

Notice Setting or Resetting Hearing on Motion

#20

Oct 02, 2026

NOTICE by Juan Lucas Pereira Da Silva re 18 Emergency MOTION to Expedite Ruling on Motion to Enforce (ECF No. 17)Emergency MOTION for Order to Enforce the September 2, 2026 Order and Release Petitioner Immediately, 17 MOTION to Enforce Judgment ; Respondents' Failure to Respond to ECF No. 18 and Request for Decision on the Papers (Binnall, Jacob) (Entered: 10/02/2026)

#21

Oct 02, 2026

Judge George A. OToole, Jr: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. The petitioner's Request for Decision on the Papers (see dkt. no. 20 ) is denied. The Court will hear argument on the petitioner's emergency motion (dkt. no. 18 ) at the October 6, 2026, hearing as scheduled. (See dkt. no. 19 .) (FGD) (Entered: 10/02/2026)

Oct 02, 2026

Order AND ~Util - Terminate Motions