Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Elsa Maria Zuna Bravo,
Petitioner
v. 	Case No. 26-cv-386-SM-TSM
Opinion No. 2026 DNH 065
Superintendent, Strafford County
Dept. of Corrections, et al.,
Respondents
O R D E R
Petitioner is a civil immigration detainee from Brazil who
seeks an order directing respondents to release her immediately
from ICE custody or, in the alternative, an order directing the
federal respondents to provide her with a prompt,
constitutionally-adequate bond hearing before a neutral
decisionmaker. 	See generally 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 	On May 15,
2026, the respondents were directed to show cause why the court
should not issue an order granting Bravo’s petition to the
extent it seeks an order directing them to grant her a bond
hearing based upon her apparent membership in the class
certified in Guerrero Orellana v. Moniz, No. 25-cv-12664-PBS,
2025 WL 3687757, at *10-11 (D. Mass. Dec. 19, 2025), and/or her
similarity to the petitioner in Destino v. FCI Berlin, Warden,
No. 25-cv-374-SE-AJ, 2025 WL 4010424 (D.N.H. Dec. 24, 2025).
Case 1:26-cv-00386-SM-TSM Document 7 Filed 06/01/26 Page 1 of 3

2
The respondents filed their response to the order to show
cause on May 22, 2026, in which they maintain that Destino and
Guerrero Orellana were wrongly decided, assert that Bravo is
subject to mandatory detention pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1225, and
object to the court granting the relief she seeks. 	See Response
to Order to Show Cause (document no. 5). 	Nonetheless, they
acknowledge that the court would reach the same result in this
case as it reached in Destino if it were to apply the same
reasoning as set forth in that case.
Conclusion
The respondents have failed to show cause why the court
should not order them to afford Bravo a bond hearing before an
immigration judge (IJ). 	Because the court concludes that the
reasoning in Destino applies in this case, the petition is
granted, in part. 	The respondents are ordered to provide Bravo
with a constitutionally-adequate bond hearing before an IJ as
soon as practicable, at which the government will bear the
burden to either: (1) prove by a preponderance that Bravo is a
flight risk; or (2) prove by clear and convincing evidence that
she poses a danger to the community. 	See Destino, 2025 WL
4010424 at *8. 	See also Hernandez-Lara v. Lyons, 10 F.4th 19,
41 (1st Cir. 2021).
Case 1:26-cv-00386-SM-TSM Document 7 Filed 06/01/26 Page 2 of 3

3
If the government fails to provide a bond hearing, the
court will set appropriate terms and conditions of the
petitioner’s release during the pendency of her removal
proceedings.
To the extent Bravo seeks an order directing her immediate
release, that request is denied without prejudice. 	The court
finds that a bond hearing before an IJ is sufficient to protect
her rights at this stage.
The government shall file a status report within fourteen
days.
SO ORDERED.
____________________________
Steven J. McAuliffe
United States District Judge
June 1, 2026
cc: 	Counsel of Record
Case 1:26-cv-00386-SM-TSM Document 7 Filed 06/01/26 Page 3 of 3