Batista Santiago v. Hyde et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
_______________________________________
)
CLAUDIANA BATISTA SANTIAGO, 	)
)
Petitioner, 	)
) 	Civil Action No.
v. 	) 	25-13975-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. Petitioner Claudiana Batista Santiago is a citizen of Brazil who
applied for admission into the United States in 2018. She was released into the country on her
own recognizance under 8 U.S.C. § 1226 and issued a Notice to Appear for removal proceedings
under 8 U.S.C. § 1229a. She has resided in Massachusetts since.
On December 23, 2025, petitioner was taken into ICE custody pursuant to the mandatory
detention provision of 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b). She contends that her continued detention without an
individualized custody-determination hearing violates her procedural due-process right, is not
authorized by statute, and violates the Administrative Procedure Act. She seeks immediate
release or, in the alternative, an individualized custody hearing.
To be clear, this Court is without the authority to determine whether petitioner should be
removed from the United States; that is a matter for the immigration courts. Nonetheless, and for
the reasons that follow, the Court agrees that petitioner is being detained without lawful
Case 1:25-cv-13975-FDS Document 9 Filed 01/06/26 Page 1 of 5

2
authority, and therefore will order that she be granted a bond hearing before an immigration
judge.
I. 	Background
Claudiana Batista Santiago, a citizen of Brazil, applied for admission into the United
States on October 28, 2018, at the Paso Del Norte Port of Entry near El Paso, Texas. (Pet. Writ
Habeas Corpus (“Pet.”) ¶ 14, Dkt. No. 1; id. Ex. A). According to the petition, she was initially
processed for expedited removal and credible-fear proceedings. (Id. ¶ 14). The next day, DHS
issued a Notice to Appear (Form I-862) that placed her in removal proceedings under section 240
of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) (codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1229a) in Boston,
Massachusetts. (Id. ¶ 15; id. Ex. A). On October 31, 2018, DHS released her on her own
recognizance (Form I-220A) under section 236 of the INA (codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1226). (Id.
¶ 15; id. Ex. A). In July 2021, DHS issued a superseding Notice to Appear. (Id. ¶ 16; id. Ex. B).
The petition states that it is unclear whether the Notice to Appear was filed with the Immigration
Court. (Id. ¶ 17). Batista Santiago has continuously resided in Massachusetts since her initial
release. (Id. ¶ 18).
ICE took Batista Santiago into custody in Massachusetts on December 23, 2025. (Id.
¶ 19). She was detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b) as an “applicant for admission” subject
to mandatory detention. (Id. ¶ 21). Early on December 24, 2025, she filed, through counsel, a
petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. At the time of filing, the ICE
Online Detainee Locator system did not provide a physical location for her. (Id. ¶ 8; id. Ex. C).
The petition names Patricia Hyde, the Boston Field Office Director for U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement and Removal Operations, as her immediate custodian.
Case 1:25-cv-13975-FDS Document 9 Filed 01/06/26 Page 2 of 5

3
The petition was assigned to this session and, at 12:01 p.m., the Court entered an order
staying her transfer outside of the District of Massachassets without advance notice of the
intended move. (Order Concerning Stay Transfer or Removal, Dkt. No. 4). The Court further
ordered respondents to answer or respond to the petition by January 3, 2025. Respondents were
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. That petition and order were
electronically served to the U.S. Attorney’s Office later that afternoon and copies mailed to
respondents.
At approximately 12:50 p.m. that same day, without notice to this Court, ICE transferred
petitioner by plane out of Massachusetts. ICE contends that it did so due to lack of bedspace for
female detainees in the state. (Resp’t’s Notice Inadvertent Transfer, Dkt. No. 6). Petitioner is
currently detained at the South Texas Family Residential Center in Dilley, Texas. (Id.).
On December 31, 2025, respondents responded to the petition. They “submit[ted] that
the legal issues presented in this Petition are similar to those recently addressed by this Court in
De Andrade” and “[s]hould the Court follow its reasoning in [that case], it would reach the same
result here.” (Resp’ts’ Resp. Pet., Dkt. No. 7). They also filed a notice that petitioner had been
inadvertently transferred out of the district on December 24th. (Resp’ts’ Notice Inadvertent
Transfer). According to the notice, ICE first became aware of the petition and this Court’s order
on December 29, 2025. Respondents requested that if the Court should grant the petition and
order a bond hearing, petitioner should attend the bond hearing by video while she remains
detained in Texas.
Case 1:25-cv-13975-FDS Document 9 Filed 01/06/26 Page 3 of 5

4
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 have been released on their own recognizance into the United States
under 8 U.S.C. § 1226 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, she is not an “applicant for admission” under § 1225, and her detention under that
provision is in violation of law. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Furthermore, a § 1226(a) detainee is
entitled to a hearing in 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 § 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. Accordingly, at this
stage, the Court does not reach petitioner’s claims under the Administrative Procedure Act.
That leaves petitioner’s transfer out of Massachusetts. Respondents do not dispute that
she was detained within the District of Massachusetts at the time of the petition’s filing, nor have
they objected to respondent Hyde being characterized as petitioner’s immediate custodian at that
time. See Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 441 (2004) (“[W]hen the Government moves a
Case 1:25-cv-13975-FDS Document 9 Filed 01/06/26 Page 4 of 5

5
habeas petitioner after she properly files a petition naming her immediate custodian, the District
Court retains jurisdiction and may direct the writ to any respondent within its jurisdiction who
has legal authority to effectuate the prisoner’s release.” (restating the holding of Ex parte Endo,
323 U.S. 283 (1944))). The Court will therefore order respondents to either return petitioner to
Massachusetts or waive any objections to the jurisdiction or authority of the Court to issue the
writ, notwithstanding the transfer of petitioner to Texas.
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. Respondents are hereby ORDERED to either release petitioner
or provide her a constitutionally-adequate bond hearing pursuant to Hernandez-Lara v. Lyons, 10
F.4th 19 (1st Cir. 2021) no later than January 14, 2025. In addition, they are further ORDERED
to either return petitioner to Massachusetts for her bond hearing or waive any objections to the
jurisdiction or authority of the Court to issue the writ notwithstanding petitioner’s detention in
Texas.
So Ordered.
/s/ F. Dennis Saylor IV
F. Dennis Saylor IV
Dated: January 6, 2026 	United States District Court Judge
Case 1:25-cv-13975-FDS Document 9 Filed 01/06/26 Page 5 of 5