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.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON PETITIONER’S
MOTION FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
January 16, 2026
STEARNS, D.J.
An 	ill-starred 	marriage 	of 	a 	lawyer’s 	behindhand 	filing 	and 	a
bureaucratic fumble ignited a perfect storm that swept up an innocent and
unsuspecting teenage college student traveling home to Texas from her
freshman year at Babson College in Massachusetts to surprise her parents
for Thanksgiving break. 	A three-day whirlwind ended with petitioner Any
Lucia Lopez Belloza (Any) stranded in Honduras, the ancestral home from
which her mother had brought her to the United States at age eight in a (thus
Case 1:25-cv-13499-RGS Document 37 Filed 01/16/26 Page 1 of 9

2
far) unsuccessful quest to be admitted as lawful residents. 	The United
States, to its credit, apologized to Any and the court at a January 13, 2026
hearing for what it agrees was a tragic (and preventable) mistake. 	There are
now two principal issues before the court: (1) Does it have jurisdiction over
Any’s habeas corpus petition given her lawyer’s late filing on her behalf in
the wrong judicial district? And (2) notwithstanding the answer to the first
question, is there a remedy within the power of the United States to perform
that will give justice to Any without compromising any immediate interests
it may have in its enforcement of the immigration laws? 	The answer to the
first question is (unfortunately) no. 	The answer to the second question is
(fortunately) yes, as the court will explain.
First, a summary of the undisputed facts drawn from the pleadings and
the statements of counsel at the January 13 hearing. 	Any, now nineteen-
years-old, was born in Honduras in 2006, and by virtue of her birth, is a
citizen of that country. 	See Belloza Decl. (Dkt # 16-1) ¶ 3; Chan Decl. (Dkt
# 8-1) ¶ 5. 	In December of 2014, she was brought to the United States by
her mother without prior authorization. 	Belloza Decl. ¶ 2; Chan Decl. ¶ 6.
Any and her mother reported to immigration authorities and were released
into the United States to await adjudication of their status. 	They settled in
Case 1:25-cv-13499-RGS Document 37 Filed 01/16/26 Page 2 of 9

3
Austin, Texas, with Any’s father. 	Belloza Decl. ¶ 2. 	Any graduated from
high school in Austin, earning a diploma and a full scholarship to prestigious
Babson College in Wellesley, Massachusetts, where she was enrolled as a
fulltime student at the time of her detention (and remains a student in good
standing to this day).
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. 	Chan Decl. ¶ 7. 	The denial was affirmed by the
Board of Immigration Appeals on February 8, 2017, and an order of removal
was entered.1 	Chan Decl. ¶ 7.
In September of 2025, Any enrolled at Babson College and began her
freshman year of studies. 	See Belloza Decl. (Dkt # 16-1) ¶ 3. 	Proud of her
achievement, she decided to make a surprise visit to her parents in Austin to
celebrate the Thanksgiving holiday. 	Id. ¶ 4. 	A week before Thanksgiving
Day, on Thursday, November 20, 2025, she arrived at Logan Airport in
1 The court has no reason to doubt the government’s representation
that this order remained outstanding at the time of Any’s detention. 	See
Gov’t. Resp. (Dkt # 27), Ex. C. 	The court, however, 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.
Case 1:25-cv-13499-RGS Document 37 Filed 01/16/26 Page 3 of 9

4
Boston to begin the first leg of her trip to Austin by catching a 5:45 a.m. flight
to Baltimore, Maryland. 	Id. ¶ 5. 	As she neared the gate, she was stopped
by two ICE officers, who escorted her to a waiting SUV. 	Id. ¶¶ 7-9. 	She
was handcuffed and taken to the ICE’s Burlington Field Office, arriving at
6:00 a.m. 	Id. ¶ 9, 12. 	After processing, she was permitted to make a phone
call to her father at approximately 11:00 a.m. to explain what had happened
and where she was being held. 	Id. ¶ 21-22. 	At approximately 2:00 p.m.,
she was permitted to call her mother. 	Id. ¶ 27. 	Shortly thereafter, she was
allowed a second call to her father, who told her that the family was
attempting to hire a lawyer to intercede on her behalf. 	Id.
At some point that afternoon, the family succeeded in engaging the
services 	of 	a 	Boston 	immigration 	lawyer, 	Todd 	C. 	Pomerleau, 	Esq.
November 20 passed without Attorney Pomerleau filing in this court for a
temporary stay of removal order.2
2 Under the established practice in this District, temporary stay orders
are issued virtually automatically when a habeas petition is filed to permit
the case to be assigned to and considered by an Article III judge. (According
to the government’s count, some 700 orders have been issued in the months
since the current escalation of immigration enforcement began. 	To this
court’s 	knowledge, 	no 	application 	for 	a 	stay 	order 	has 	been 	denied.)
Although Attorney Pomerleau told the court that he did not file out of a
reluctance to awaken a judge after hours, the orders are docketed and acted
upon on a 24/7 basis, as the local immigration bar is well aware.
Case 1:25-cv-13499-RGS Document 37 Filed 01/16/26 Page 4 of 9

5
Shortly after breakfast on the morning of Friday, November 21, Any
was transferred with other detainees to Hanscom Air Force Base in Bedford,
Massachusetts. 	Id. ¶¶ 31-32. 	She was placed on an ICE-chartered flight to
Port Isabel in the Southern District of Texas, where ICE maintains a
detention center. 	Id. ¶¶ 33-38. 	The flight departed Hanscom at 12:27 p.m.
and arrived in Texas at 4:48 p.m. that afternoon. 	Chan Decl. ¶ 9.
Attorney Pomerleau did not file Any’s habeas petition until 6:00 p.m.
that day.3 	Ten minutes later, at 6:10 p.m., the Emergency Judge issued the
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. 	(The case was immediately thereafter drawn to this session).
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 Decl. (Dkt # 27-1) ¶ 10. 	St. Pierre
had been temporarily assigned to monitor the inflow of messages from the
3 When asked at the hearing why the petition had not been filed earlier,
Attorney Pomerleau told the court (as he did in his pleadings) that he had
spent the day making “significant efforts” to obtain more information from
ICE about Any’s whereabouts but was unable to reach a live person by
telephone. 	See Pet.’s Reply Mem. (Dkt # 16) at 3.
Case 1:25-cv-13499-RGS Document 37 Filed 01/16/26 Page 5 of 9

6
U.S. Attorney’s Office because of “short staffing.” 	Id. ¶ 11. 	St. Pierre
acknowledges in a sworn declaration submitted to the court that he received
notice of the order. 	He states that he reviewed Any’s case and determined
that she had already been removed to Texas. 	Id. ¶ 12. 	While he entered a
memorandum notice of the order, he did not enter a “Z-Hold” flag alerting
ICE officers in other districts of the need for further review of the case
“because I was under the mistaken impression that I did not need to do so
because the Petitioner was no longer in the state of Massachusetts” and he
believed that, “since Petitioner was no longer in Massachusetts, the Court’s
order did not apply to her.” 	Id. ¶¶ 13-14.4
The following morning, Saturday, November 22, 2025, Any was placed
on flight that left Harlingen, Texas at 10:35 a.m., arriving in Tegucigalpa,
Honduras at 1:09 p.m. 	Chan Decl. ¶ 10. 	Any remains in Honduras today,
living with her grandmother, and struggling to remain current with her
studies and exams at Babson College by remote attendance.
It is well established that habeas jurisdiction vests in the judicial
district in which a petitioner is confined and that her petition must name the
proper custodian. 	Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 434-435 (2004);
4 Government’s counsel unequivocally conceded at the hearing that St.
Pierre’s belief was mistaken as a matter of law and practice.
Case 1:25-cv-13499-RGS Document 37 Filed 01/16/26 Page 6 of 9

7
Vasquez v. Reno, 233 F.3d 688, 695 (1st Cir. 2000). 	With a rare and largely
untested exception,5 there can be only one such district. 	Id. 	Very much
in point is Trump v. J.G.G., 604 U.S. 670, 672 (2025), in which the Supreme
Court determined that petitioners confined in Texas could not properly
prosecute a petition in the District of Columbia for want of venue. 	In this
case, because Any’s petition was filed after she had arrived at the detention
center in Port Isabel, physical jurisdiction over the petition did not attach in
this district, and the petition could only be brought in the district where she
was then confined, namely, the Southern District of Texas.
That the court concludes that it lacks jurisdiction over Any’s habeas
petition does not, however, conclude the matter. 	There remains the issue
of a remedy. 	There is happily no one-size-fits-all solution for seeing that
justice be done in what all agree was an amalgam of errors that ended badly
5 The possible exception identified by the First Circuit in Vasquez
might arise where the government deliberately and in bad faith holds a
detainee incommunicado or shuttles her from place to place with the explicit
purpose of preventing her from seeking habeas relief or manipulating
jurisdiction. 	Vasquez, 233 F.3d at 696; see also Padilla, 542 U.S. at 441-
442. 	The exception does not apply here, as there was no attempt on the part
of the government to conceal Any’s location or to prevent her from contacting
her parents. 	Although the issue is premature, there is a genuine question
whether a court’s ability to enforce compliance with its orders regarding
consideration of a petition is independent of its jurisdiction over the petition
itself, such that the power to issue civil contempt remains.
Case 1:25-cv-13499-RGS Document 37 Filed 01/16/26 Page 7 of 9

8
for Any. 	Rather there is a salmagundi of options. 	As the court suggested
at the hearing, the simplest solution would be for the Secretary of State to
exercise 	his 	considerable 	discretion 	under 	the 	INA, 	see 	8 	U.S.C.
§§ 1101(a)(15)(F), 1184, to grant Any a non-immigrant student visa that
would allow her to continue her studies at Babson College while her
immigration status plays out in due course in the appropriate courts of law.
The second alternative, as alluded to in footnote 5, supra, is for the
court to order the government to arrange Any’s expeditious return to the
United States and to the status quo, with a threat of a finding of contempt
should 	the 	government 	refuse 	to 	comply. 	Such 	a 	return 	could 	be
accomplished under such appropriate and reasonable conditions that the
government might impose, such as the posting of a bond. 	As the court
intimated at the hearing, a finding of criminal contempt for the government’s
failure to abide by the letter of the court’s stay order is not on the table, as
the government did nothing of a deliberate nature to warrant such a
finding. 	Civil contempt, on the other hand, 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 N.H,
665 F.3d 25, 32 (1st Cir. 2012). 	The court is also sensitive to the fact that
Case 1:25-cv-13499-RGS Document 37 Filed 01/16/26 Page 8 of 9

9
contempt, criminal or civil, is a weapon of last resort to be deployed sparingly
using 	the 	“least 	possible 	power 	suitable 	to 	achieve 	the 	end
proposed.” 	Project B.A.S.I.C. v. Kemp, 947 F.2d 11, 16 (1st Cir. 1991).
At this moment in time, there is nothing for the court to coerce, as it
would prefer to give the government an opportunity to rectify the mistake it
acknowledges having made in Any’s case before contemplating the issuance
of any further order. 	To this end, the court directs the Department of
Justice to convey this decision to the Secretary of State, with the court’s
recommendation that a student visa (or other comparable visa status) be
extended to Any in the Secretary’s discretion. 	The court will expect an
answer within a reasonable period of time (but in no event more than twenty-
one (21) days from the date of this Order).
SO ORDERED.
/s/ Richard G. Stearns__________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 1:25-cv-13499-RGS Document 37 Filed 01/16/26 Page 9 of 9