De Almeida Oliveira et al v. Hyde et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
_______________________________________
)
ALEXIS DE ALMEIDA OLIVEIRA, 	)
)
Petitioner, 	)
) 	Civil Action No.
v. 	) 	25-cv-13733-FDS
)
PATRICIA HYDE, 	)
)
Respondent. 	)
_______________________________________)
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 Alexis De Almeida Oliviera is a citizen of Brazil who
entered the United States in 2022. He then applied for, and was granted, Special Immigrant
Juvenile status, deferred action, and employment authorization.
On December 6, 2025, he was taken into ICE custody pursuant to the mandatory
detention provision of 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b). Petitioner contends that his detention without an
1 The petition names Patricia Hyde, Field Office Director, Boston Field Office, U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement; Todd Lyons, Acting Director, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Kristi Noem,
U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security; and Pamela Bondi, U.S. Attorney General, as respondents. Petitioner
contends that he is detained at the ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations field office in Burlington,
Massachusetts. (Pet. Writ Habeas Corpus ¶ 6, Dkt. No. 1). The Court notes that “an 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.” Vasquez v. Reno, 233 F.3d 688, 696 (1st Cir. 2000); see also 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.”). The petition indicates that Patricia Hyde is the legal custodian of petitioner.
(Pet. Writ Habeas Corpus ¶ 7). Nevertheless, it alleges that she “is responsible for arrests, processing, detention,
production, transfer, and release of individuals in removal proceedings.” (Id.). Although the Court is uncertain
whether Hyde is the immediate custodian of petitioner and thus a proper respondent, she will not be dismissed from
the case. The Court will dismiss the claims against the other respondents, who oversee the administration of
immigration laws nationally and do not directly control the facility where petitioner is being detained. (Id. ¶¶ 7-10).
Case 1:25-cv-13733-FDS Document 8 Filed 12/17/25 Page 1 of 5

2
opportunity to be heard violates his due-process rights. He seeks immediate release or, in the
alternative, a constitutionally adequate bond 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
authority, and therefore will order that he be granted a bond hearing before an immigration
judge.
I. 	Background
Alexis De Almeida Oliveira, a citizen and national of Brazil, entered the United States in
August 2022 when he was nineteen years old. (Pet. Writ Habeas Corpus [“Pet.”] ¶ 22, Dkt. No.
1). In February 2024, he applied for Special Immigrant Juvenile status, which was approved by
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services in April of that year. (Id. ¶ 25; id. Ex. A). He was
granted deferred action for a period of four years. (Id. Ex. A). In June 2024, he was further
granted employment authorization. (Id. ¶ 27; id. Ex. B).
ICE took De Almeida Oliveira into custody on December 6, 2025, during a check-in at
the ICE field office in Burlington, Massachusetts. (Id. ¶ 28). The petition alleges that he is
currently detained there. (Id. ¶ 16).
That same day, he filed, through counsel, a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The petition contends that his detention without an opportunity to be heard
violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. (Id. ¶ 4). At the same time, he filed a
motion for a temporary restraining order and injunctive relief. On December 8, 2025, this Court
Case 1:25-cv-13733-FDS Document 8 Filed 12/17/25 Page 2 of 5

3
ordered respondents to answer or respond to the petition by December 12, 2025.2 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. (Service Order
1, Dkt. No. 4). Respondents “submit[ted] that the legal issues presented in the Petition are
similar to those recently addressed by this Court in De Andrade v. Moniz” and “[s]hould the
Court follow its reasoning in De Andrade, it would reach the same result here.” (Resp. to
Habeas Pet., Dkt No. 6).
II. 	Analysis
In De Andrade v. Moniz, this Court explained that Ҥ 1225 provides for mandatory
detention for non-citizens who are ‘applicants for admission’ into the United States, while
§ 1226 provides for discretionary detention for non-citizens ‘already present’ in the United
States.” 2025 WL 2841844, at *4 (D. Mass. Oct. 7, 2025). Under a limited exception, “a non-
citizen paroled into the country under § 1182(d)(5)(A) is still treated as an applicant for
admission subject to the expedited removal process.” Id. Otherwise, “one that has ‘effected an
entry into the United States’ has constitutional protections.” Id. (quoting Zadvydas v. Davis, 533
U.S. 678, 693 (2001)). As relevant here, “due process entitles a § 1226(a) detainee 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.’” Id. (quoting Hernandez-Lara v. Lyons, 10 F.4th 19, 41 (1st Cir. 2021)).
2 In order to maintain jurisdiction, the Court also ordered that petitioner should not be moved outside of the
District of Massachusetts without prior notice. (Service Order 2, Dkt. No. 4).
Case 1:25-cv-13733-FDS Document 8 Filed 12/17/25 Page 3 of 5

4
Here, because petitioner is “already in” the country, his detention is governed by § 1226
rather than § 1225. He has lived in the United States since 2022. He was not paroled into the
United States under § 1182(d)(5)(A), and therefore the limited exception does not apply.
Moreover, the government has not treated petitioner as an applicant for admission: U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services granted him Special Immigrant Juvenile status, deferred
action, and employment authorization. See, e.g., Rodriguez v. Perry, 747 F. Supp. 3d 911, 916
(E.D. Va. 2024) (holding that the award of Special Immigrant Juvenile status “converted [the
petitioner] from being an arriving alien to an alien present in the United States”). They cannot
turn back time and do so now.
For the reasons discussed in the Court’s decision in De Andrade v. Moniz, and those of
hundreds of federal cases across the country, see Martinez v. Hyde, 2025 WL 3152847, at *1 (D.
Mass. Nov. 12, 2025), petitioner cannot be detained under § 1225(b)(2). Because the
government has not proffered an alternative authority for detention, to the extent that the
government has such lawful authority, it must be under § 1226(a). Due process therefore
requires that petitioner be granted a bond hearing in which the government bears the burden of
proof. See Hernandez-Lara, 10 F.4th at 41; see also Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281, 306
(2018) (citing 8 C.F.R. §§ 236.1(d)(1) (explaining that “[f]ederal regulations provide that aliens
detained under § 1226(a) receive bond hearings at the outset of detention”). His continued
detention without a bond hearing is “in violation of the Constitution or laws . . . of the United
States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). The Court will therefore grant his petition.
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
Case 1:25-cv-13733-FDS Document 8 Filed 12/17/25 Page 4 of 5

5
release petitioner or provide him a bond hearing no later than December 24, 2025. The claims
against defendants Todd Lyons, Kristi Noem, Pamela Bondi, are DISMISSED.
So Ordered.
/s/ F. Dennis Saylor IV
F. Dennis Saylor IV
Dated: December 17, 2025 	United States District Judge
Case 1:25-cv-13733-FDS Document 8 Filed 12/17/25 Page 5 of 5