Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Ederson Martignago,
Petitioner
v. 	Case No. 26-cv-445-SM-AJ
Opinion No. 2026 DNH 080
Warden, Strafford County
Department of Corrections, et al.,
Respondents
O R D E R
Ederson Martignago is a civil immigration detainee from
Brazil. 	He brings this habeas corpus petition seeking a court
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. 	On June 1, 2026, the respondents
were directed to show cause why the court should not grant the
petition to the extent it seeks an order directing them to
afford petitioner a bond hearing based upon his apparent
membership in the class certified in Guerrero Orellana v. Moniz,
813 F. Supp. 3d 185 (D. Mass. 2025), and/or his similarity to
the petitioner in Destino v. FCI Berlin, Warden, No. 25-cv-374-
SE-AJ, 2025 WL 4010424 (D.N.H. Dec. 24, 2025).
Case 1:26-cv-00445-SM-AJ Document 14 Filed 06/17/26 Page 1 of 3

2
On June 4, 2026, the federal respondents filed their
response, in which they assert that petitioner is not entitled
to the relief he seeks. 	Specifically, they assert that
petitioner has been convicted of two separate charges of
larceny. 	And, they say, larceny is a crime involving moral
turpitude, which makes petitioner inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. §
1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I) (providing that any alien convicted of a
crime involving moral turpitude is inadmissible). 	See generally
Onwuamaegbu v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 405, 407 n.2 (1st Cir. 2006)
(“Larceny is generally considered a crime of moral turpitude.”)
(citing Lawrence v. Gonzales, 446 F.3d 221, 226-67 (1st Cir.
2006)).
Consequently, respondents assert that petitioner is subject
to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c)(1)(a) and is not
entitled to either immediate release or a bond hearing. 	See
generally Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510, 513 (2003) (“We hold that
Congress, justifiably concerned that deportable criminal aliens
who are not detained continue to engage in crime and fail to
appear for their removal hearings in large numbers, may require
that persons such as respondent be detained for the brief period
necessary for their removal proceedings.”); Jennings v.
Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281, 305-06 (2018) (“We hold that § 1226(c)
Case 1:26-cv-00445-SM-AJ Document 14 Filed 06/17/26 Page 2 of 3

3
mandates detention of any alien falling within its scope and
that detention may end prior to the conclusion of removal
proceedings ‘only if’ the alien is released for witness-
protection purposes.”).
Petitioner has not responded or otherwise disputed
respondents’ factual or legal claims.
Conclusion
In light of the foregoing, the court will deny the petition
and close the case on July 9, 2026, unless petitioner shows
cause why it should remain open.
SO ORDERED.
____________________________
Steven J. McAuliffe
United States District Judge
June 17, 2026
cc: 	Counsel of Record
Case 1:26-cv-00445-SM-AJ Document 14 Filed 06/17/26 Page 3 of 3