District of Massachusetts • 1:25-cv-13616

#1

Dec 01, 2025

Emergency PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) Filing fee: $ 5, receipt number AMADC-11387043 Fee status: Filing Fee paid., filed by Elisangela Iolanda Da Costa. (Attachments: # 1 Category Form, # 2 Civil Cover Sheet, # 3 Exhibit Exh 1 - I589 Receipt, # 4 Exhibit Exh 2 - Hearing in Removal Proceedings)(Cerretani, Gabriela) (Entered: 12/01/2025)

#2

Dec 01, 2025

ELECTRONIC NOTICE of Case Assignment. Judge Indira Talwani 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 Donald L. Cabell. (NMC) (Entered: 12/01/2025)

#3

Dec 01, 2025

Judge Indira Talwani: ORDER entered. ORDER CONCERNING SERVICE OF PETITION AND STAY OF TRANSFER OR REMOVAL. (FGD) (Additional attachment(s) added on 12/1/2025: # 1 SEALED Appendix) (FGD). (Entered: 12/01/2025)

#4

Dec 01, 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). (FGD) (Entered: 12/01/2025)

Dec 01, 2025

Notice of Case Assignment

#5

Dec 02, 2025

NOTICE of Appearance by Mark Sauter on behalf of Pamela Bondi, Department of Homeland Security, Todd M Lyons, Kristi Noem, David Wesling (Sauter, Mark) (Entered: 12/02/2025)

#6

Dec 02, 2025

RESPONSE/ANSWER to 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241), by Pamela Bondi, Department of Homeland Security, Todd M Lyons, Kristi Noem, David Wesling. (Sauter, Mark) (Entered: 12/02/2025)

#7

Dec 11, 2025

Judge Indira Talwani: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER entered.The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [Doc. No. 1 ] is therefore GRANTED as follows. No later than December 18, 2025, Da Costa must be provided a bond hearing pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226 or, if the immigration judge declines to conduct a bond hearing based on Matter of Yajure Hurtado, Respondents shall so advise the court by that date so that this court may conduct the bond hearing. Any decision by the immigration judge to retain Da Costa in custody following a bond hearing pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226 shall set forth the reasons for the continued detention.IT IS SO ORDERED. (SEC) (Entered: 12/12/2025)

#8

Dec 21, 2025

STATUS REPORT by Elisangela Iolanda Da Costa. (Cerretani, Gabriela) (Entered: 12/21/2025)

#9

Jan 22, 2026

STATUS REPORT SECOND by Elisangela Iolanda Da Costa. (Cerretani, Gabriela) (Entered: 01/22/2026)

#10

Jan 23, 2026

NOTICE by Pamela Bondi, Department of Homeland Security, Todd M Lyons, Kristi Noem, David Wesling re 3 Service Order - 2241 Petition of Transfer (Sauter, Mark) (Entered: 01/23/2026)

#11

Jan 29, 2026

STATUS REPORT THIRD STATUS REPORT by Elisangela Iolanda Da Costa. (Cerretani, Gabriela) (Entered: 01/29/2026)

#12

Jan 30, 2026

NOTICE by Pamela Bondi, Department of Homeland Security, Todd M Lyons, Kristi Noem, David Wesling re 3 Service Order - 2241 Petition of Intent to Transfer (Sauter, Mark) (Entered: 01/30/2026)

#13

Jan 30, 2026

Judge Indira Talwani: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. Petitioner shall show cause, no later than February 2, 2026, as to why this matter should not be closed in light of Petitioner's Third Status Report [ 11 ] noting that on January 29, 2026, Petitioner received a bond hearing and was "denied bond citing flight risk concerns." (Talwani, Indira) (Entered: 01/30/2026)

Jan 30, 2026

Order

#14

Feb 01, 2026

Objection to 12 Notice (Other) by Elisangela Iolanda Da Costa Objection to Notice of Intent to Transfer. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Hearing Notice)(Cerretani, Gabriela) (Entered: 02/01/2026)

#15

Feb 01, 2026

RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Elisangela Iolanda Da Costa. (Cerretani, Gabriela) (Entered: 02/01/2026)

#16

Feb 02, 2026

NOTICE by Pamela Bondi, Department of Homeland Security, Todd M Lyons, Kristi Noem, David Wesling re 3 Service Order - 2241 Petition of Intent to Transfer (Sauter, Mark) (Entered: 02/02/2026)

#17

Feb 02, 2026

Judge Indira Talwani: ELECTRONIC ORDER: where Respondents' Notice of Intent to Transfer [ 16 ] states that Petitioner is currently housed on an emergency basis in the ICE Boston Field Office, ICE lacks an appropriate ICE facility to detain women in Massachusetts, and bed space is currently available at the Donald W. Wyatt Detention Facility in Central Falls, Rhode Island, id. at 12, and where Respondents do not contend that transfer from the District of Massachusetts divests this court of jurisdiction and venue over the habeas case, id. at 2, the court grants Respondents' alternate request to allow the transport of Petitioner, effective immediately, to the Donald W. Wyatt Detention Facility in Central Falls, Rhode Island. Respondents' request that the court dismiss the Petition and vacate its order requiring advance notice of intent to transfer remains under advisement.(SEC) (Entered: 02/02/2026)

Feb 02, 2026

Order

#18

Feb 18, 2026

NOTICE by Pamela Bondi, Department of Homeland Security, Todd M Lyons, Kristi Noem, David Wesling of Intent to Transfer Petitioner (Sauter, Mark) (Entered: 02/18/2026)

#19

Feb 20, 2026

Judge Indira Talwani: ELECTRONIC ORDER: After this court granted Petitioner’s Emergency Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [ 1 ] and ordered Respondents to provide Petitioner with a bond hearing, see Mem. & Order [ 7 ], an immigration judge held a hearing and denied Petitioner bond, citing flight risk concerns. Pet’r’s Third Status Report [ 11 ].On January 30, 2026, this court ordered Petitioner to show cause why this matter should not be closed, where Petitioner has received a bond hearing. Electronic Order [ 13 ]. On February 1, 2026, Petitioner filed a Reply to Order to Show Cause [ 15 ], arguing that the bond hearing “does not fully resolve the custody issues that brought her before this Court.” Id. at 1. Petitioner reported that she remained detained and her custody was being litigated before the Executive Office for Immigration Review (“EOIR”), “including a Motion to Reconsider filed on February 1, 2026 and the potential for a bond appeal[.]” Id. Petitioner contended that the petition therefore presented a “live controversy” because “the Court can still prevent custodial actions that would impair Petitioner’s ability to pursue” those remedies or “would unnecessarily prolong her detention[.]” Id. Petitioner asserted further that a move out of the district “would materially interfere with [her] ability to pursue the pending Motion to Reconsider, impair communication and the relationship with her Massachusetts-based counsel, and risk depriving her of the opportunity to supplement or clarify the record before EOIR rules on her pending motion.” Id. at 2. Petitioner asked to keep this habeas matter open and maintain the stay of transfer at least through the February 11, 2026 Individual Calendar Hearing and the resolution of her pending Motion to Reconsider and potential bond appeal.” Id. at 3 [ 15 ].On February 2, and February 18, 2026, Respondents notified the court of their intent to transfer Petitioner out of the District. Respondents’ Notice of Intent to Transfer [ 16 ]; Respondents’ Notice of Intent to Transfer Pet’r [ 18 ]. Following the February 2 notice, the court permitted transfer to Rhode Island in light of the lack of an appropriate facility in Massachusetts, but kept under advisement Respondents’ request that the court dismiss the Petition and vacate its order requiring advance notice of intent to transfer. Electronic Order [ 17 ]. Respondents’ February 18 Notice states that the Immigration Judge denied Petitioner’s applications for relief from removal on February 11, 2026, but that Petitioner reserved her right to appeal. Notice 2 n.2 [ 18 ]. Respondents state further that they intend to transfer Petitioner to the Houston Contract Detention Facility in Houston, Texas, and again request the court “to dismiss the Petition and vacate its order requiring advance notice of intent to transfer.” Id. at 4–5.In both the February 2 and February 18, 2026 notices, Respondents have argued that under Aguilar v. U.S. Immigr. & Customs Enf't Div. of Dep't of Homeland Sec., 510 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2007), Petitioner’s claims regarding access to her counsel for her immigration proceedings cannot be raised in a habeas petition. Notice 2 [ 16 ]; Notice 2 [ 18 ]. Petitioner has offered no argument in response.In Aguilar, the First Circuit addressed, in part, petitioners’ “claim that their detention and subsequent transfer by the government infringed their rights to counsel by barring their access to lawyers” and by “interfering with preexisting attorney-client relationships[.]” Aguilar, 510 F.3d at 13. The First Circuit concluded that “petitioners’ right-to-counsel claims must be administratively exhausted” given that a petitioner’s right to counsel was “part and parcel of the removal proceeding itself.” Id. The First Circuit explained that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(9) “was designed to consolidate and channel review of all legal and factual questions that arise from the removal of an alien into the administrative process[.]” Id. at 9 (emphasis in original). Accordingly, the First Circuit found that “allowing aliens to ignore the channeling provisions of section 1252(b)(9) and bring right-to-counsel claims directly in the district court would result in precisely the type of fragmented litigation that Congress sought to forbid.” Id. at 13–14. Petitioner offers no ground for why her claim that transfer would affect her ability to access counsel must not be administratively exhausted.Petitioner relies on Chafin v. Chafin, 568 U.S. 165 (2013), for the proposition that “a case is not moot so long as the court can grant ‘any effectual relief whatever’” Pet’r’s Reply to Order to Show Cause [ 15 ] (citing Chafin, 568 U.S. at 172). But here the court does not have jurisdiction to grant the additional relief sought by Petitioner. The other two cases Petitioner cites are likewise inapposite. In Vasquez v. Reno, 233 F.3d 688 (1st Cir. 2000) at issue was whether the Attorney General of the United States was “the custodian of an alien being held at a federal detention facility (and therefore a proper respondent to that alien's petition for a writ of habeas corpus)[.]” Vasquez v. Reno, 233 F.3d at 689. That question of who the proper respondent is differs from the question of what claims may be included in a habeas petition. Meanwhile, Devitri v. Cronen, 289 F. Supp. 3d 287 (D. Mass. 2018), did not address whether a court may retain jurisdiction over a Petitioner’s detention after granting habeas relief.Accordingly, in light of the court’s Memorandum & Order [ 7 ] ordering a bail hearing and Petitioner’s Third Status Report [ 11 ] indicating a bond hearing was conducted, at which time Petitioner was denied bond, Petitioner’s Petition is DISMISSED and the order requiring notice of intent to transfer is vacated.(SEC) (Entered: 02/20/2026)

Feb 20, 2026

Order AND Order Dismissing Case

#20

Sep 01, 2026

Judge Indira Talwani: ELECTRONIC ORDER: Where the court dismissed Petitioner’s Emergency Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [ 1 ] and vacated the Order Concerning Service of Petition and Stay of Transfer or Removal [ 3 ] on February 20, 2026, see Elec. Order [ 19 ], and no further requests have been filed, the clerk is directed to CLOSE this matter.(MAP) (Entered: 09/01/2026)

Sep 01, 2026

Order

#21

Sep 02, 2026

Order Dismissing Case