Oliveira Batista v. Hyde et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
_______________________________________
)
DIOGO OLIVEIRA BATISTA, 	)
)
Petitioner, 	)
) 	Civil Action No.
v. 	) 	26-10195-FDS
)
PATRICIA HYDE, et al., 	)
)
Respondents. 	)
_______________________________________)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON PETITION
FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
SAYLOR, J.
This is a habeas petition that concerns the government’s authority to hold a non-citizen
pending removal proceedings.1 Petitioner Diogo Oliveira Batista is a citizen of Brazil who
entered the United States without being admitted or paroled. On January 17, 2026, he was taken
into ICE custody in Acton, Massachusetts. Petitioner contends that his continued detention
1 The petition names Patricia Hyde, New England Field Office Director, U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement; Todd Lyons, Acting Director, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Kristi Noem, U.S.
Secretary of Homeland Security; Pamela Bondi, Attorney General of the United States; and Donald Trump,
President of the United States, as respondents. It alleges that petitioner is held in ICE custody in Massachusetts and
that “[o]ne or more of the respondents is Petitioner’s immediate custodian.” (Dkt. No. 1 ¶¶ 4, 23). The government
has not moved to dismiss any of the respondents.
The Court notes that “the person who has custody over [the petitioner]” is the only proper respondent. 28
U.S.C. § 2242; see Vasquez v. Reno, 233 F.3d 688, 696 (1st Cir. 2000) (“[A]n alien who seeks a writ of habeas
corpus contesting the legality of his detention by the INS normally must name as the respondent his immediate
custodian, that is, the individual having day-to-day control over the facility in which he is being detained.”);
Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 435 (2004) (“[I]n habeas challenges to present physical confinement—‘core
challenges’—the default rule is that the proper respondent is the warden of the facility where the prisoner is being
held, not the Attorney General or some other remote supervisory official.”). Todd Lyons, Kristi Noem, Pamela
Bondi, and Donald Trump are national officials and have no direct supervision over ICE detainees in Massachusetts.
The Court will therefore dismiss the claims against those respondents.
Case 1:26-cv-10195-FDS Document 9 Filed 01/27/26 Page 1 of 4

2
without a bond hearing violates 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and his Fifth Amendment rights. He seeks
immediate release or, in the alternative, a constitutionally adequate bond hearing.
I. 	Background
Diogo Oliveira Batista, a native and citizen of Brazil, entered the United States without
being admitted or paroled. (Dkt. No. 1 ¶¶ 2, 5). He now lives in Massachusetts. (Id. ¶ 1).
ICE took Oliveira Batista into custody on January 17, 2026, in Acton, Massachusetts.
(Id. ¶ 3). Petitioner alleges that he is being detained pursuant to the mandatory detention
provision of 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b). (Id. ¶¶ 14-15). He further contends that he has not been
convicted of any crime that would mandate detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c). (Id. ¶ 10).
On January 17, 2026, Oliveira Batista filed, through counsel, a petition for a writ of
habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Dkt. No. 1). On January 20, 2026, the Court
ordered that petitioner not be moved outside this District without prior notice until further order
of the Court. (Dkt. No. 6, at 2). Respondents were further ordered to address whether, in light of
this Court’s decision in De Andrade v. Moniz, 2025 WL 2841844 (D. Mass. Oct. 7, 2025) and
Dume Rivera et al. v. Moniz, 2025 WL 3198419 (D. Mass. Oct. 16, 2025), petitioner here was
entitled to the same relief. (Id. at 1).
On January 26, 2026, respondents answered the petition. They concede that “the legal
issues presented in this Petition are similar to these recently addressed by this Court in Dume
Rivera” and “[s]hould the Court follow its reasoning in [that case], it would reach the same result
here.” (Dkt. No. 8, at 1-2).2
2 In a footnote, respondents further contend that petitioner appears to be a member of the class certified in
Guerrero Orellana v. Moniz, 2025 WL 3687757, *10 (D. Mass. Dec. 19, 2025). (Dkt. No. 8, at 2 n.2). They ask the
Court to dismiss the petition because petitioner is limited to “one bite at the litigation apple” under the doctrine of
res judicata and claim splitting. (Id. (quoting Ashbourne v. Hansberry, 894 F.3d 298, 302 (D.C. Cir. 2018)). It is
unclear what precise effect the declaratory judgment in that case has on this action. But the Court need not resolve
that question for these purposes because it independently determines that petitioner’s detention violates the INA.
Case 1:26-cv-10195-FDS Document 9 Filed 01/27/26 Page 2 of 4

3
II. 	Analysis
For the reasons discussed in the Court’s decision in De Andrade v. Moniz, 2025 WL
2841844 (D. Mass. Oct. 7, 2025), and those of many other courts across the country, see
Rodriguez v. Bostock, 2025 WL 2782499, at *1 & n.3 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 30, 2025) (collecting
cases), non-citizens who initially entered the United States without inspection but have resided in
the country for a substantial period of time are subject to discretionary detention under § 1226(a),
not mandatory detention under § 1225(b). Because petitioner has already entered and resides in
the United States, he is not an “applicant seeking admission” under § 1225, and his detention
under that provision is therefore “in violation of the . . . laws . . . of the United States.” 28
U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3).
Because petitioner can be held, if at all, only under § 1226(a), he is entitled to a hearing
at which the government must “either (1) prove by clear and convincing evidence that [the
detainee] poses a danger to the community or (2) prove by a preponderance of the evidence that
[he] poses a flight risk.” Hernandez-Lara v. Lyons, 10 F.4th 19, 41 (1st Cir. 2021); see also
Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281, 306 (2018) (explaining that federal regulation requires that
§ 1226(a) detainees “receive bond hearings at the outset of detention” (citing 8 C.F.R.
§§ 236.1(d)(1), 1236.1(d)(1))). Therefore, and because respondents have not offered another
authority for petitioner’s detention, the Court will grant the petition and order respondents to
promptly provide petitioner with an individualized bond hearing pursuant to Hernandez-Lara v.
Lyons.
Furthermore, the government concedes that the issues in this case are similar to those
addressed in Dume Rivera v. Moniz, 2025 WL 3198419 (D. Mass. Oct. 16, 2025). In that case,
Case 1:26-cv-10195-FDS Document 9 Filed 01/27/26 Page 3 of 4

4
the Court found that the continued detention of § 1226(a) detainees who had been granted bond
under an automatic stay regulation, 8 C.F.R. § 1003.19(i)(2), violated their procedural due-
process rights. At this stage, petitioner is seeking a bond hearing. Respondents have not, to the
Court’s knowledge, denied petitioner bond under the automatic stay regulation. The Court will
therefore address that issue if and when it arises.
III. 	Conclusion and Order
Accordingly, and for the foregoing reasons, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus under
28 U.S.C. § 2241 is GRANTED. Respondent Patricia Hyde is hereby ORDERED to either
release petitioner or provide him a bond hearing no later than February 6, 2026. The claims
against respondents Todd Lyons, Kristi Noem, Pamela Bondi, and Donald Trump are
DISMISSED.
So Ordered.
/s/ F. Dennis Saylor IV
F. Dennis Saylor IV
Dated: January 27, 2026 	United States District Court Judge
Case 1:26-cv-10195-FDS Document 9 Filed 01/27/26 Page 4 of 4