Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Hiago Vinicius De Lima Goncalves,
Petitioner
v. 	Case No. 26-cv-311-SM-TSM
Opinion No. 2026 DNH 054
David Wesling, Boston Field Office
Director, U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement and Removal Operations (“ICE/ERO”);
Antone Moniz, Superintendent, Plymouth County
Correctional Facility; Todd Lyons,
Acting Director of U.S. Immigration Customs
Enforcement (“ICE”); Markwayne Mullin,
Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security
(“DHS”); U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security; and
Todd Blanche, Acting Attorney General of the United
States,
Respondents
O R D E R
Hiago Vinicius De Lima Goncalves petitions the court for an
order directing respondents to release him immediately from ICE
custody or, in the alternative, an order directing the federal
respondents to provide him with a prompt, constitutionally-
adequate bond hearing before a neutral decisionmaker. 	See
generally 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 	The federal respondents object,
asserting the Goncalves is subject to mandatory detention
pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b) and not entitled to a bond
hearing.
Case 1:26-cv-00311-SM-TSM Document 24 Filed 05/07/26 Page 1 of 5

2
For the reasons discussed, as well as those set forth in
Destino v. Warden, FCI Berlin, 2025 WL 4010424, 2025 DNH 149
(D.N.H. Dec. 24, 2025), Goncalves’ petition is granted to the
extent it seeks a constitutionally-adequate bond hearing.
Background
Goncalves is a native and citizen of Brazil who is
currently detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
(ICE) at the Strafford County House of Corrections in Dover, New
Hampshire.
Goncalves entered the United States in 2010 and was placed
into removal proceedings before an Immigration Judge in Houston,
Texas. 	In April of 2010, the IJ granted Goncalves voluntary
departure under to 8 U.S.C. § 1229c and he subsequently left the
country pursuant to that order. 	About three years later, in
2013, Goncalves re-entered the country without inspection. 	For
roughly 13 years, he has lived freely in the United States,
settled in Massachusetts, married a U.S. Citizen, and currently
has a pending visa petition filed on his behalf by his spouse -
that is, a Form I-130 Petition for Alien Relative - which has
been approved by USCIS.
Case 1:26-cv-00311-SM-TSM Document 24 Filed 05/07/26 Page 2 of 5

3
On April 16, 2026, Goncalves was arrested by ICE agents in
Norwood, Massachusetts, and remains in detention. 	He was
originally held at the ICE field office in Burlington,
Massachusetts, but subsequently transferred to the Strafford
County House of Corrections in Dover, New Hampshire.
Accordingly, his petition, which was filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts, was
transferred to this court.
Discussion
The primary dispute between the parties is focused on the
statutory basis for Goncalves’ detention. 	The government
asserts that his detention is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)
and, therefore, subject to mandatory detention. 	That is to say,
the government denies that Goncalves is entitled to a bond
hearing. 	Goncalves, on the other hand, says his detention is
subject to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and, therefore, he claims he is
entitled to a bond hearing at which the government bears the
burden of demonstrating by clear and convincing evidence that
his is a danger to the community, or by a preponderance of the
evidence that he is a flight risk, to justify his continued
detention.
Case 1:26-cv-00311-SM-TSM Document 24 Filed 05/07/26 Page 3 of 5

4
But, as the government acknowledges, this court recently
concluded that even those noncitizens who are ostensibly held
pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1225 have a Due Process right to a bond
hearing.
[T]he Due Process Clause requires a hearing at which
the government is held to its burden regardless of
whether the government classifies a noncitizen as
detained under § 1225 or § 1226(a). 	Here, Destino has
a due process right to an individualized bond hearing,
and neither the legislature nor the executive can
strip him of that right by classifying him as detained
under § 1225.
Destino v. FCI Berlin, No. 1:25-CV-374-SE-AJ, 2025 WL 4010424,
at *9 (D.N.H. Dec. 24, 2025) (citations omitted). 	Although the
government maintains that Destino was wrongly decided, it does -
to its credit - acknowledge that Goncalves is entitled to a bond
hearing if the court applies the reasoning in Destino to the
facts presented in this case. 	See Government’s Objection
(document no. 20) at 2, 10.
Conclusion
Because the reasoning in Destino applies in this case,
Goncalves’ petition is granted, in part. 	The respondents are
ordered to provide the petitioner with a constitutionally-
adequate bond hearing before an IJ as soon as practicable, at
which the government will bear the burden to either: (1) prove
Case 1:26-cv-00311-SM-TSM Document 24 Filed 05/07/26 Page 4 of 5

5
by a preponderance that Goncalves is a flight risk; or (2) prove
by clear and convincing evidence that he poses a danger to the
community. 	See Destino, 2025 WL 4010424 at *8. 	See also
Hernandez-Lara v. Lyons, 10 F.4th 19, 41 (1st Cir. 2021).
If the government fails to provide a bond hearing, the
court will set appropriate terms and conditions of the
petitioner’s release during the pendency of his removal
proceedings.
To the extent petitioner seeks an order directing his
immediate release, that request is denied without prejudice, as
the court finds that a bond hearing before an IJ is sufficient
to protect his rights at this stage. 	The government shall file
a status report within fourteen days.
SO ORDERED.
____________________________
Steven J. McAuliffe
United States District Judge
May 7, 2026
cc: 	Counsel of Record
Case 1:26-cv-00311-SM-TSM Document 24 Filed 05/07/26 Page 5 of 5