District of Massachusetts • 1:26-cv-13190

#1

Jul 10, 2026

PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) Filing fee: $ 5, receipt number AMADC-11880617 Fee status: Filing Fee paid., filed by jose leomar ferreira da silva. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Category Form )(Ahn, Sanghyun) Modified on 7/13/2026 Duplicate Text (NMC). (Entered: 07/10/2026)

#2

Jul 13, 2026

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. (FGD) (Entered: 07/13/2026)

#3

Jul 13, 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: 07/13/2026)

#4

Jul 13, 2026

Chief District Judge Denise J. Casper: ORDER entered. ORDER CONCERNING SERVICE OF PETITION AND STAY OF TRANSFER OR REMOVAL. (EZG) (Entered: 07/13/2026)

Jul 13, 2026

Notice of Case Assignment

#5

Jul 14, 2026

NOTICE of Appearance by Mark Sauter on behalf of Patricia Hyde, Markwayne Mullin, David Venturella (Sauter, Mark) (Entered: 07/14/2026)

#6

Jul 27, 2026

RESPONSE/ANSWER to 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241), by Patricia Hyde, Markwayne Mullin, David Venturella. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D)(Sauter, Mark) (Entered: 07/27/2026)

#7

Jul 29, 2026

RESPONSE/ANSWER to 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241), by Jose Leomar Ferreira da Silva. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit I-589 Receipt Notice, # 2 Exhibit Notice of Dismissal of I-589)(Ahn, Sanghyun) (Entered: 07/29/2026)

#8

Aug 10, 2026

Chief District Judge Denise J. Casper: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241), filed by Jose Leomar Ferreira da Silva. Having reviewed the petition for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (the "Petition") filed by Petitioner Jose Leomar Ferreira da Silva ("Petitioner"), D. 1, Respondents' opposition, D. 6, and Petitioner's reply, D. 7, the Court DENIES the Petition.Factual Background. On June 4, 2022, Petitioner entered the United States at or near El Paso, Texas without inspection. D. 7 ¶ 7; D. 6-1. Shortly thereafter, on June 10, 2022, U.S. Border Patrol arrested Petitioner and issued a Notice and Order of Expedited Removal, Form I-860, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1). D. 7 ¶ 8; D. 6 at 3; D. 6-1. Petitioner was released the same day on parole valid for one year pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5)(A). D. 7 ¶ 9; D. 6 at 3; D. 6-3; see 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5)(A) (allowing for discretionary, temporary parole by the Department of Homeland Security "on a case-by-case basis for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit").In April 2023, Petitioner filed an affirmative application for asylum and withholding of removal, Form I-589, with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services ("USCIS"). See D. 7 ¶ 10; D. 7-1. He received an acknowledgement of receipt from USCIS which stated that his application was pending, but "does not preclude U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) or U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) from placing [Petitioner] into removal proceedings." D. 7-1. Petitioner was arrested and detained by ICE on July 10, 2026. D. 7 ¶ 11; D. 6 at 3. USCIS then issued a Notice of Dismissal of Form I-589 on July 15, 2026, informing Petitioner that his application had been denied because he had been apprehended, issued a Form I-860 Notice and Order of Expedited Removal and placed into expedited removal proceedings. D. 7 ¶ 12; D. 7-2. The Notice further informed Petitioner his claim would be considered through the credible fear screening process. D. 7-2. After receiving a credible fear interview, USCIS issued Petitioner a Form I-869, indicating that Petitioner had not established a credible fear of persecution or torture and recognizing Petitioner's request for review by an immigration judge. D. 6-4.Petitioner alleges that his custody is properly governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1226, see D. 1 ¶¶ 19, 27, 33, and contends that his detention without a bond hearing is, therefore, unlawful because it violates his rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, seeid. ¶¶ 22-31. He seeks immediate release or, in the alternative, a bond hearing. Id. at 8. Respondents contend Petitioner's arrest and detention are governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b). D. 6 at 9-12.Discussion. 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").The parties dispute whether Petitioner is detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226, entitling him to a bond hearing, or 8 U.S.C. § 1225, which does not entitle Petitioner to a bond hearing. D. 7 ¶ 24; D. 6 at 9-12. A detainee under § 1225 "has only those rights regarding admission that Congress has provided by statute," Dep't of Homeland Sec. v. Thuraissigiam, 591 U.S. 103, 140 (2020), and is not entitled to the same review afforded to a § 1226 detainee, "even though the [§ 1225] detainee may pose no danger to the community or flight risk, and the process may be as lengthy [as] the regular removal process," De Andrade v. Moniz, 802 F. Supp. 3d 325, 331 (D. Mass. 2025).Respondents have provided evidence indicating that Petitioner was paroled into the United States under § 1182(d)(5)(A). D. 6-3 (stating that ICE "has decided to parole [Petitioner] from its custody pursuant to its authority under [§] 212(d)(5)(A)"). Parole pursuant to § 1182(d)(5)(A) "employs a legal fiction whereby non-citizens are physically permitted to enter the country but are nonetheless 'treated,' for legal purposes, 'as if stopped at the border.'" Martinez v. Hyde, 792 F. Supp. 3d 211, 216 (D. Mass. 2025) (quoting Thuraissigiam, 591 U.S. at 139); see De Andrade, 802 F. Supp. 3d at 330 (providing that "[a] non-citizen paroled into the country under § 1182(d)(5)(A) is still treated as an applicant for admission subject to the expedited removal process"). Because Petitioner was ordered removed under § 1225(b)(1), D. 6-1, and subsequently paroled under § 1182(d)(5)(A), D. 6-3, which "explicitly provides that upon termination of parole, the alien is to be replaced into the custody from which he was paroled," Luna Banegas v. McDonald, No. 25-cv-13161-NMG, 2025 WL 3251395, at *3 (D. Mass. Nov. 21, 2025); see De Souza Costa v. Wesling, No. 25-cv-13480-DJC (D. Mass. Dec. 23, 2025), D. 9 (noting that "a key distinction in this case," where habeas relief was ultimately denied, was the fact that petitioner, who claimed fear on return, "was released on parole pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5)"), and because Petitioner's parole expired in June 2023, D. 6-3 (providing that "parole authorization is valid for one year"), his current detention is governed by § 1225. Accordingly, Petitioner's detention does not violate the Due Process Clause, and he is not entitled to a bond hearing. Luna Banegas, 2025 WL 3251395, at *3 (noting that "[u]pon revocation of his humanitarian parole, petitioner was placed in custody pursuant to § 1225(b)(1) just as though he had been stopped at the border and [that] his due process rights . . . d[id] not include the right to a bond hearing"); see Galicia v. Lyons, 26-cv-11468-FDS, 2026 WL 1847046, at *5 (D. Mass. June 26, 2026) (denying a petition where petitioner was granted parole under § 1182(d)(5)(A)).Lastly, the Court rejects Petitioner's argument that he is entitled to relief because Respondents failed to explain the delayed dismissal of his Form I-589. D. 7 ¶¶ 20-23, 25. As Petitioner acknowledges, id. ¶ 19, USCIS could not process the application in light of Petitioner's outstanding Form I-860 and subsequent parole as stated in the Notice of Dismissal, D. 7-2. Moreover, the Petitioner has not established that the filing and receipt of his application should upset Congress's "clear intent that noncitizens paroled into the United States 'shall . .. be dealt with in the same manner as . . . any other applicant for admission' after their parole is terminated." Galicia, 2026 WL 1847046, at *5 (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5)(A)); see De Souza Costa, No. 25-cv-13480-DJC, D. 9 (denying petition on similar grounds where petitioner had previously filed, and been denied, an affirmative application for asylum and withholding of removal).For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES the Petition, D. 1.(SEC) (Entered: 08/10/2026)

#9

Aug 10, 2026

Chief District Judge Denise J. Casper: ORDER entered. ORDER OF DISMISSAL. (SEC) (Entered: 08/10/2026)

Aug 10, 2026

Order

#10

Aug 12, 2026

NOTICE of Appearance by Andrew George Lattarulo on behalf of Jose Leomar Ferreira da Silva (Lattarulo, Andrew) (Entered: 08/12/2026)

#11

Aug 18, 2026

MOTION for Reconsideration re 9 Order Dismissing Case, 8 Order by Jose Leomar Ferreira da Silva. (Lattarulo, Andrew) Modified on 8/18/2026: to clean up docket text (EZG). (Entered: 08/18/2026)

#12

Aug 18, 2026

Emergency MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order by Jose Leomar Ferreira da Silva.(Lattarulo, Andrew) (Entered: 08/18/2026)

#13

Aug 26, 2026

NOTICE of Appearance by Gabriela J. Cerretani on behalf of Jose Leomar Ferreira da Silva (Cerretani, Gabriela) (Entered: 08/26/2026)

#14

Aug 27, 2026

Chief District Judge Denise J. Casper: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered re 11 MOTION for Reconsideration and 12 Emergency MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order filed by Jose Leomar Ferreira da Silva. Having reviewed the motion to alter or amend judgment and for reconsideration of the Order denying the Petition for habeas relief filed by Petitioner Jose Leomar Ferreira da Silva ("Petitioner"), D. 11, the Court DENIES the motion.Petitioner's motion raises arguments absent from both his Petition, D. 1, and his reply to Respondents' opposition, D. 7, particularly regarding the sufficiency of his Notice and Order of Expedited Removal, compare D. 11 at 2, with D. 7 ¶¶ 17, 19, 29, 32. "Courts will not entertain arguments that could have been but were not raised before the just-issued decision" when deciding a Rule 59(e) motion for reconsideration of a habeas petition. See Banister v. Davis, 590 U.S. 504, 516 (2020). To the extent that there are different rulings by certain sessions of this Court about issues that were raised in the Petition, the Court already considered same in its prior ruling, D. 8. See De Souza Costa v. Wesling, No. 25-cv-13480-DJC (D. Mass. Dec. 23, 2025), D. 9; see also Galicia v. Lyons, 26-cv-11468-FDS, 2026 WL 1847046, at *5 (D. Mass. June 26, 2026) (recognizing the different conclusions reached by sessions of this court and the "difficult line-drawing issues" raised by Petitioner's position). Moreover, the foundation of the Court's Order remains Petitioner's parole pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5)(A) and Congress's "clear intent that noncitizens paroled into the United States 'shall . . . be dealt with in the same manner as . . . any other applicant for admission' after their parole is terminated." Galicia, 2026 WL 1847046, at *5 (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5)(A)).For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner's motion, D. 11, is DENIED. In light of the Court's ruling, Petitioner's motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction is DENIED as moot. D. 12. (SEC) (Entered: 08/27/2026)

Aug 27, 2026

Order AND ~Util - Terminate Motions