Lima Vieira Milhomem v. Wesling et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
HARLEY LIMA VIEIRA MILHOMEM,
Petitioner,
*
*
*
*
Civil Action No. 1:26-cv-10161-IT
v. 	*
*
DAVID WESLING, Boston Field Office
Director, U.S. Immigration & Customs
Enforcement and Removal Operations;
ANTONE MONIZ, Superintendent, Plymouth
County Correctional Facility; TODD LYONS,
Acting Director, U.S. Immigration & Customs
Enforcement; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
HOMELAND SECURITY; KRISTI NOEM,
Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland
Security; and PAMELA BONDI, Attorney
General of the United States,
Respondents.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
February 2, 2026
Petitioner Harley Lima Vieira Milhomem, a native and citizen of Brazil, alleges that he
lawfully entered the United States in or around July 2018 “on a B-2 visitor visa.” Pet. ¶¶ 1, 11
[Doc. No. 1]. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) took Petitioner into custody
on or about January 15, 2026. Id. ¶ 12. Respondents assert that Petitioner “overstayed his visa
and is removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(B).” Opp’n 1 [Doc. No. 7].
Petitioner is presently detained at ICE’s Field Office in Burlington, Massachusetts, and
anticipates that he will be transferred to Plymouth County Correctional Facility in Plymouth,
Massachusetts. Pet. ¶¶ 3, 14 [Doc. No. 1]. On January 15, 2026, Petitioner filed an Emergency
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [Doc. No. 1], in which he seeks a “writ of
Case 1:26-cv-10161-IT Document 8 Filed 02/02/26 Page 1 of 3

2
habeas corpus ordering his immediate release or an individualized bond hearing before an
Immigration Judge.” Id. ¶ 26.
Although Respondents oppose Petitioner’s request for immediate release, they “do not
contest that Petitioner is detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226 and that he is entitled to a bond
hearing upon his request.” Opp’n 1 [Doc. No. 7]. Respondents instead allege that, where
Petitioner has not requested a bond hearing and been denied, Petitioner has failed to exhaust his
administrative remedies, and his Petition [Doc. No. 1] is therefore premature. Opp’n 1–2 [Doc.
No. 7]. Respondents have also filed a copy of a notice, dated January 20, 2026, that appears to
advise Petitioner and his attorney that a bond hearing was scheduled for 1:00 p.m. on January 29,
2026, at the Chelmsford Immigration Court. See Opp’n, Not. of Custody Redetermination Hr’g
in Immigration Procs. [Doc. No. 7-1]. Petitioner did not file a reply, as permitted under the
court’s Order entered on January 16, 2026. See Order Concerning Serv. of Pet. and Stay of
Transfer or Removal 2 [Doc. No. 4].
Where the parties agree that Petitioner is detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226 and is
therefore entitled to a bond hearing, and where Respondents have provided evidence that
Petitioner would receive such a hearing on January 29, 2026, the Petition [Doc. No. 1] is
DENIED with leave to amend. If the bond hearing scheduled for January 29, 2026, did not take
place, or if the Immigration Judge determined that he or she may not consider Petitioner’s
request for bond at that hearing, Petitioner may file an Amended Petition. In that event,
Petitioner should detail the exhaustion of his administrative remedies, so as to avoid any future
ambiguity. See Orellana Serrano v. McDonald, 1:25-cv-13395-IT, 2025 WL 3296037, at *2 (D.
Mass. Nov. 26, 2025).
Respondents shall submit a status report on this matter no later than February 4, 2026.
Case 1:26-cv-10161-IT Document 8 Filed 02/02/26 Page 2 of 3

3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
February 2, 2026 	/s/ Indira Talwani
United States District Judge
Case 1:26-cv-10161-IT Document 8 Filed 02/02/26 Page 3 of 3