Cabral Moreta v. Wesling et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
YAJAYRA CABRAL MORETA,
Petitioner,
*
*
*
*
Civil Action No. 1:26-cv-10868-IT
v. 	*
*
DAVID WESLING, Field Office
Director, U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement; TODD M. LYONS, Acting
Director, U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement; KRISTI L. NOEM, U.S.
Secretary of Department of Homeland
Security; and PAMELA BONDI,
U.S. Attorney General,
Respondents.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
March 5, 2026
TALWANI, D.J.
Pending before the court is Petitioner Yajayra Cabral Moreta’s Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus [Doc. No. 1] and Respondents’ Motion to Transfer Case [Doc. No. 7]. For the
following reasons, Respondents’ Motion is DENIED and the Petition is GRANTED as set forth
below.
I. 	Background
Petitioner is a citizen and national of the Dominican Republic who lives in
Massachusetts. See Pet. ¶¶ 2–3 [Doc. No. 1]. On February 12, 2026, Petitioner checked in as
scheduled in Burlington, Massachusetts, at U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s
(“ICE”) Field Office, where ICE arrested and detained her. See id. ¶ 5; see also Krzyzek Decl.
¶ 10 [Doc. No. 7-1] (“ICE officers encountered Petitioner during her compliance check in, and
Case 1:26-cv-10868-IT Document 9 Filed 03/05/26 Page 1 of 5

2
took her into custody.”). At the time she was detained, her immigration counsel had filed a
formal appearance with the Department of Homeland Security on Petitioner’s behalf, see Form
G-28 [Doc. No. 8-3], but counsel reportedly was not notified of Petitioner’s detention, see Pet.’s
Opp’n 2 [Doc. No. 8].
The following day, February 13, 2026, at approximately 3:35 p.m., ICE transported
Petitioner from its Burlington Field Office to the Chittenden Regional Correctional Facility in
Burlington, Vermont, where she arrived at approximately 7:15 p.m. See Krzyzek Decl. ¶¶ 11–15
[Doc. No. 7-1].
Petitioner’s counsel filed this habeas Petition [Doc. No. 1] roughly two hours later, at
9:36 p.m., on February 13, 2026. At the time of filing, ICE’s Detainee Locator System provided
no information as to Petitioner’s current detention facility but advised family members and legal
representatives that they may be able to obtain additional information about her from the Boston,
Massachusetts Docket Control Office for Enforcement and Removal Operations. See Screenshot
of Detainee Locator Sys. [Doc. No. 8-2].
The court’s Emergency Order Concerning Stay of Transfer or Removal [Doc. No. 2] was
entered and served the same evening. Following the holiday weekend, on February 17, 2026, the
matter was assigned to this session, see Elec. Notice of Case Assignment [Doc. No. 3], and the
court directed Respondents to file their response to the Petition in 48 hours, see Order
Concerning Serv. of Pet. and Stay of Transfer or Removal 2 [Doc. No. 4].
On February 19, 2026, Respondents filed the pending Motion to Transfer [Doc. No. 7]
this case to the U.S. District Court for the District of Vermont.1
1 Respondents acknowledged that their response was due at 10:07 a.m. and requested that the
court consider the motion nunc pro tunc. Mot. to Transfer 1 n.1 [Doc. No. 7]. That request is
Case 1:26-cv-10868-IT Document 9 Filed 03/05/26 Page 2 of 5

3
II. Motion to Transfer
Citing Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 442 (2004), Respondents assert that this court
lacks jurisdiction over the Petition [Doc. No. 1] because Vermont is currently and has been the
district of Petitioner’s confinement since she filed her Petition on February 13, 2026, and
because Petitioner’s immediate custodian, the warden of the Chittenden Regional Correctional
Facility, is in Vermont. See Resp.’s Mot. 2–3 [Doc. No. 7]; Krzyzek Decl. ¶¶ 10–15 [Doc. No. 7-
1]. Petitioner argues in opposition that this court retains jurisdiction over the Petition [Doc. No.
1], pursuant to the unknown custodian exception. See Pet.’s Opp’n 2–3 [Doc. No. 8].
As a general rule, jurisdiction “for core habeas petitions challenging present physical
confinement . . . lies in only one district: the district of confinement.” Padilla, 542 U.S. at 443.
The Supreme Court has recognized an exception to this rule, however, explaining that when “a
prisoner is held in an undisclosed location by an unknown custodian, it is impossible to apply the
immediate custodian and district of confinement rules.” Id. at 450 n.18 (citing Demjanjuk v.
Meese, 784 F.2d 1114, 1116 (D.C. Cir. 1986)). The “unknown custodian exception,” as it is
known, “is critical because a detainee must always have an available forum for a habeas petition,
even if the government doesn’t disclose their location,” Suri v. Trump, 2025 WL 1806692, at *5
(4th Cir. July 1, 2025).
At the time of filing the Petition [Doc. No. 1], Petitioner’s location was unknown, as ICE
failed to disclose Petitioner’s district of confinement to Petitioner’s attorney or family, despite a
notice of appearance by immigration counsel. See Form G-28 [Doc. No. 8-3]. At that moment,
the only information available was that ICE detained Petitioner in Massachusetts. See Screenshot
granted, but the court notes that Respondents have filed no further Response (timely or
otherwise) to the Petition [Doc. No. 1].
Case 1:26-cv-10868-IT Document 9 Filed 03/05/26 Page 3 of 5

4
of Detainee Locator Sys. [Doc. No. 8-2]. ICE’s online Detainee Locator System reported
Petitioner’s location as unknown, and the same System directed interested parties to call the
Boston Docket Control Office for more information. Id. Given these undisputed facts, the court
finds that Respondents were “not forthcoming with respect to . . . [Petitioner’s] place of
detention,” Padilla, 542 U.S. at 454 (Kennedy, J. concurring), and despite a “reasonably diligent
effort” by Petitioner’s attorney to find such information on Petitioner’s behalf, counsel was
unable to determine Petitioner’s location at the time of filing. Suri v. Trump, 785 F. Supp. 3d
128, 143–44 (E.D. Va. 2025). Therefore, the court retains subject matter jurisdiction over the
Petition [Doc. No. 1], pursuant to the unknown custodian exception, and Respondents’ request to
transfer it to the District of Vermont is denied. See Aleksander B. v. Trump, 2026 WL 172435, at
*3 (D. Minn. Jan. 22, 2026) (collecting cases denying transfer in similar circumstances).
III. 	Habeas Petition
Respondents do not contest that Petitioner was detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a)
rather than 8 U.S.C. § 1225. Because Petitioner entered the United States and was released on
parole in December 2021, she is not an applicant for admission subject to mandatory detention.
See Pet. ¶ 4 [Doc. No. 1]; Krzyzek Decl. ¶¶ 7–9 [Doc. No. 7-1]; Doe v. Moniz, 800 F. Supp. 3d
203, 211 (D. Mass. Sept. 5, 2025). The court finds that Petitioner’s detention is governed by 8
U.S.C. § 1226(a). The Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision in Matter of Yajure Hurtado, 29
I. & N. Dec. 216 (B.I.A 2025), is unpersuasive and does not change the analysis. See Elias
Escobar v. Hyde, 2025 WL 2823324, at *3 (D. Mass. Oct. 3, 2025) (citing cases reaching the
same conclusion).
Case 1:26-cv-10868-IT Document 9 Filed 03/05/26 Page 4 of 5

5
IV. 	Conclusion
Accordingly, Respondents’ Motion to Transfer Case [Doc. No. 7] is DENIED and the
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [Doc. No. 1] is GRANTED as follows: No later than March
16, 2026, Cabral Moreta must be returned to the District of Massachusetts and provided a bond
hearing pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), or, if the immigration judge declines to conduct a bond
hearing based on Matter of Yajure Hurtado, 29 I. & N. Dec. 216 (B.I.A 2025), Respondents shall
so advise the court by that date so that this court may conduct the bond hearing. Any decision by
the immigration judge to retain Hernandez-Reyes in custody following a bond hearing pursuant
to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) shall set forth the reasons for the continued detention.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
March 5, 2026 	/s/ Indira Talwani
United States District Judge
Case 1:26-cv-10868-IT Document 9 Filed 03/05/26 Page 5 of 5