Lopez Belloza v. Hyde et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
CIVIL ACTION NO. 25-13499-RGS
ANY LUCIA LOPEZ BELLOZA,
Petitioner
v.
PATRICIA HYDE, Field Office Director, MICHAEL KROL, HSI New
England Special Agent in Charge, and TODD LYONS, Acting Director U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement, KRISTI NOEM, U.S. Secretary of
Homeland Security, PAMELA BONDI, U.S. Attorney General, DONALD J.
TRUMP, President of the United States,
Respondents.
ORDER ON CIVIL CONTEMPT
February 13, 2026
STEARNS, D.J.
Wisdom counsels that redemption may be found by acknowledging
and fixing our own errors. 	See, e.g., Proverbs 28:13. 	In this unfortunate
case, the government commendably admits that it did wrong. 	Now it is time
for the government to make amends.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The court will briefly recap the pertinent facts, as described in more
detail in its January 16, 2026 Order (Dkt # 37). 	Any Lucia Lopez Belloza
Case 1:25-cv-13499-RGS Document 42 Filed 02/13/26 Page 1 of 8

2
was born in Honduras in 2006 and, by virtue of her birth, is a citizen of that
country. 	In December of 2014, her mother brought her into the United
States without prior authorization. 	They ultimately settled in Austin,
Texas, with Any’s father.
Any’s mother, in due course, applied for asylum on behalf of herself
and (derivatively) Any, or alternatively, for a withholding of removal. 	On
March 21, 2016, the Immigration Judge who heard Any’s mother’s case
denied her application. 	The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed the
denial on February 8, 2017, and entered an order of removal. 	Any was
eleven years old at the time.
In 2025, Any graduated from high school in Texas and began her
freshman year at prestigious Babson College in Wellesley, Massachusetts, on
a scholarship 	Hoping to surprise her parents with a visit during the
Thanksgiving holiday, Any arrived at Logan Airport in Boston on the
morning of November 20, 2025, to begin the first leg of her journey to Austin,
Texas (a 5:45 a.m. flight to Baltimore, Maryland). 	Before she could board
her plane, she was stopped by two Immigration and Customs Enforcement
(ICE) officers, who handcuffed her and brought her to ICE’s Burlington Field
Office. 	Any’s family received notice of her detention later that day and
Case 1:25-cv-13499-RGS Document 42 Filed 02/13/26 Page 2 of 8

3
engaged the services of a Boston immigration lawyer, Todd C. Pomerleau,
Esq.
Shortly after breakfast on the following morning, Friday, November 21,
2025, Any was transferred with other detainees to Hanscom Air Force Base
in Bedford, Massachusetts. 	She was placed on an ICE-chartered flight to
Port Isabel in the Southern District of Texas, departing Hanscom at 12:27
p.m., and arriving in Texas at 4:48 p.m.
Attorney Pomerleau filed a habeas petition with this court at 6:00 p.m.,
roughly an hour after Any arrived in Texas. 	At 6:10 p.m., the Emergency
Judge issued a temporary stay order barring ICE from transporting Any from
the District of Massachusetts or outside the territorial jurisdiction of the
United States for 72 hours to permit the random assignment of the petition
to a district court judge.1 	See Dkt # 2.
Six minutes after the Emergency Judge’s order issued, at 6:16 p.m., the
duty Assistant U.S. Attorney informed Richard St. Pierre, the ICE officer on
emergency duty, of the order. 	St. Pierre had been temporarily assigned to
monitor the inflow of messages from the U.S. Attorney’s Office because of
“short staffing.” 	St. Pierre Decl. (Dkt # 27-1) ¶ 11. 	St. Pierre acknowledges
1 The case was thereafter drawn to this session.
Case 1:25-cv-13499-RGS Document 42 Filed 02/13/26 Page 3 of 8

4
in a sworn declaration submitted to the court that he received notice of the
order 	and 	entered 	a 	memorandum 	notice 	that 	the 	order 	had 	issued.
Because Any was already in the state of Texas, however, he mistakenly did
not enter a “Z-Hold” flag alerting ICE officers in other districts that Any’s
case was still pending judicial review.2
The following morning, Saturday, November 22, 2025, Any was placed
on 	a 	flight 	that 	left 	Harlingen, 	Texas 	at 	10:35 	a.m., 	and 	arrived 	in
Tegucigalpa, Honduras at 1:09 p.m. 	Any remains in Honduras today, living
with her grandmother, and struggling to remain current with her studies and
exams at Babson College (which she now attends remotely over ZOOM).
DISCUSSION
The court agrees with Respondents that it lacks jurisdiction over the
original petition, which was filed by Any’s attorney too late in the wrong
2 The fact that Any was no longer in the District of Massachusetts
rendered the portion of the Emergency Judge’s order barring her removal
from Massachusetts invalid. 	As Respondents have previously conceded,
however, the portion of the order barring removal from the United States still
attached. 	See Reply to Mot. for Order to Show Cause (Show Cause Reply)
[Dkt # 27] at 2, 14 (admitting that St. Pierre was “mistaken” in his belief that
ICE did not need to comply with the order barring removal); January 13,
2026 Hearing Tr. (Hearing Tr.) [Dkt #39] at 6, 22-23. 	Respondents’
attempt to change tack and argue otherwise now is unavailing.
Case 1:25-cv-13499-RGS Document 42 Filed 02/13/26 Page 4 of 8

5
district. 3 	That issue is separate, however, from the court’s inherent
authority to address a violation of one of its orders,4 as has occurred here.
Respondents 	have 	readily 	acknowledged 	that 	they 	violated 	the
Emergency Judge’s order staying removal when they removed Any from the
United States on November 22, 2025. 	See Show Cause Reply at 2, 14;
Hearing Tr. at 21. 	The court’s hope was to avoid finding Respondents in
civil contempt for that violation by giving the government an opportunity to
voluntarily correct what, all parties agree, was a mistake. 	In that spirit, the
court suggested that the Secretary of State, with his considerable authority
over consular affairs, consider providing Any with an expedited student visa
to pursue her studies at Babson College while the validity of her removal
order 	was 	litigated 	in 	the 	proper 	fora. 	The 	Secretary 	of 	State 	has,
regrettably, declined the invitation, requiring further intervention from this
court.
3 In a sworn affidavit filed with this court, Attorney Pomerleau attested
that ICE had not updated Any’s location in its system or responded to his
attempts to confirm her location, and thus that he did not know that she was
in Texas at the time of filing.
4 United States v. United Mine Workers of America, 330 U.S. 258
(1947), cited by Respondents for the proposition that a court order void ab
initio is unenforceable, is inapt, as in this case (unlike in Mine Workers) this
court did not lack the authority to issue a valid order in the first place. 	See
id. at 294.
Case 1:25-cv-13499-RGS Document 42 Filed 02/13/26 Page 5 of 8

6
Civil contempt is not a punishment for past wrongdoing but “a
forward-looking 	penalty 	meant 	to 	coerce 	compliance” 	with 	a 	court’s
order. 	Hawkins v. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs. for New Hampshire,
665 F.3d 25, 32 (1st Cir. 2012). 	Its purpose is to give a party the opportunity
to rectify the harm that it has caused. 	Here, that purpose can best be served
by returning all parties to the status quo that existed at the time Any was
wrongfully removed from the United States.
Attempting to avoid this outcome, Respondents argue that returning
Any, who is the subject of a final order of removal (the validity of which the
court notes has not yet been tested, at least in the circumstances of Any’s
case),5 to the United States would be futile because it “would merely result
in subsequent detention and removal again to Honduras.” 	Resp. to Order
[Dkt #41] at 4. 	In making this argument, however, Respondents have
confused the prerogatives of the Executive with those of the Judiciary.6 	It
5 As the court noted in its January 16, 2026 Order, it “seriously doubts
that an eleven-year-old child would have known of the order, or that, if she
did, she would have understood its ramifications.” 	See Dkt # 37 at 3 n.1.
6 As eloquently stated by Founder John Adams in Article 30 of the
Massachusetts 	Declaration 	of 	Rights 	(predating 	but 	informing 	the
enshrinement of the separation of powers doctrine in the United States
Constitution):
In 	the 	government 	of 	this 	commonwealth, 	the 	legislative
Case 1:25-cv-13499-RGS Document 42 Filed 02/13/26 Page 6 of 8

7
is for an appropriate court (whether an Immigration Court or ultimately a
Court of Appeals) to determine the extent of Any’s due process rights and the
legality of her removal. 	This is not an issue for the Executive to prejudge
and arrogate to itself, whatever stance it may choose to take in litigating the
removal issue before a court of law.
ORDER
Respondents are ORDERED and DIRECTED to facilitate Any’s return
to the United States no later than fourteen (14) days from the date of
this Order (i.e., no later than February 27, 2026). 	Respondents shall
transmit a copy of this Order to all relevant officers, agents, and employees
under their control and with responsibility in this matter. 	Respondents
shall 	further 	file 	status 	reports 	(accompanied 	by 	declarations 	from
individuals with personal knowledge) with the court on February 18, 2026,
and if necessary, on February 26, 2026, confirming the tangible steps they
have taken to facilitate Any’s return to the United States in compliance with
department 	shall 	never 	exercise 	the 	executive 	and 	judicial
powers, or either of them: the executive shall never exercise the
legislative and judicial powers, or either of them: the judicial
shall never exercise the legislative and executive powers, or
either of them: to the end it may be a government of laws and not
of men.
Mass. Const. pt. 1, art. 30.
Case 1:25-cv-13499-RGS Document 42 Filed 02/13/26 Page 7 of 8

8
this Order.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ Richard G. Stearns
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 1:25-cv-13499-RGS Document 42 Filed 02/13/26 Page 8 of 8