Jump To

Top Caption Trial Court Document

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 4, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Wanderson Dias Da Silva v. Antone Moniz, et al.

District Court, D. Massachusetts

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 1:26-cv-11006

• Precedential Status: Unknown Status

• Opinion

• Authorities (4)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (0)

• PDF

Trial Court Document

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                          )                                         

WANDERSON DIAS DA SILVA, )

)

Petitioner, )

) Civil Action No.

v. ) 26-11006-FDS

)

ANTONE MONIZ, et al., )

)

Respondents. )

_______________________________________)

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 noncitizen
pending removal proceedings. Petitioner Wanderson Dias da Silva is a Brazilian national who
entered the United States in June 2023 by crossing the southern border, at which time he was
detained by immigration officials and later released.

On February 25, 2026, petitioner was taken into ICE custody, apparently pursuant to the
mandatory detention provision of 8 U.S.C. § 1225 (b). He contends that his continued detention
without an individualized bond hearing violates his procedural due-process right and is not
authorized by statute.

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

Wanderson Dias da Silva, a Brazilian national, entered the United States in June 2023 by
crossing the southern border. (Pet. ¶ 1). He was apprehended by immigration officials at that
time, detained for a period of several weeks, and then released into the United States. (Id.). The
petition does not allege under what authority he was released. (Id.). Since his entry into the

United States, petitioner has resided in Connecticut and Maine, most recently in Elsworth,
Maine. (Id.).

On February 20, 2026, petitioner was arrested in Elsworth, Maine, for driving without a
license. (Id. ¶ 2). Petitioner was apparently held in state custody following that arrest. (Id.). He
was taken into custody by ICE on February 25, 2026. (Id.). He is currently detained at
Plymouth County Correctional Facility in Plymouth, Massachusetts. (Id. ¶ 11).

The respondents are Antone Moniz, Superintendent, Plymouth County Correctional
Facility; Patricia Hyde, New England Field Office Director, U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement; Michael Krol, New England Special Agent in Charge for Homeland Security
Investigations, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Todd Lyons, Acting Director, U.S.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Pamela Bondi, Attorney General of the United States;
Kristi Noem, U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security; and Donald Trump, President of the United
States. (Pet. ¶¶ 12-18).1

1 The Court notes that “the person who has custody over [the petitioner]” is the only proper respondent. 28
U.S.C. § 2242; see Vasquez v. Reno, 233 F.3d 688, 696 (1st Cir. 2000) (“[A]n 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.”);
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.”). Todd Lyons, Kristi Noem, Pamela
Bondi, and Donald Trump are national officials and have no direct supervision over ICE detainees in Massachusetts.

The Court will therefore dismiss the claims against those respondents.

On February 26, 2026, the Court ordered that petitioner not be moved outside this District
without prior notice until further order of the Court. (Dkt. No. 4 at 2-3).
On March 3, 2026, respondents answered the petition. (Resp’ts’ Resp., Dkt. No. 6).

Respondents conceded that “the legal issues presented in this Petition are similar to those

recently addressed by this Court in De Andrade v. Moniz,” and that “[s]hould the Court follow its
reasoning in De Andrade . . . , it would reach the same result here.” (Id. at 1).
II. Analysis

For the reasons discussed in the Court’s decision in De Andrade v. Moniz, 2025 WL
2841844 (D. Mass. Oct. 7, 2025), and those of many other courts across the country, see
Rodriguez v. Bostock, 2025 WL 2782499, at *1 & n.3 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 30, 2025) (collecting
cases), non-citizens who initially entered the United States without inspection but have resided in
the country for a substantial period of time are subject to discretionary detention under § 1226(a),
not mandatory detention under § 1225(b). Because petitioner has already entered and resides in
the United States, he is not an “applicant seeking admission” under § 1225, and his detention
under that provision is therefore “in violation of the . . . laws . . . of the United States.” 28

U.S.C. § 2241 (c)(3).

Petitioner is a member of the class certified in Guerrero Orellana v. Moniz, because he is
detained in Massachusetts; was not placed in expedited removal proceedings; was neither
admitted nor paroled into the United States; is not subject to mandatory detention under
§ 1226(c); is not subject to post-final order detention under § 1231; and his most recent arrest did
not occur at the border when he was arriving in the United States. See Guerrero Orellana v.
Moniz, 2025 WL 3687757, at *10 (D. Mass. Dec. 19, 2025). It is unclear what precise effect the
declaratory judgment in that case has on this action; respondent Moniz was also a respondent in
Guerrero Orellana, so the judgment in that case very likely has collateral-estoppel effect here.

But the Court need not resolve that question for these purposes because it independently
determines that petitioner’s detention violates the INA.

Because petitioner can be held, if at all, only under § 1226(a), he is entitled to a hearing
at 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.” Hernandez-Lara v. Lyons, 10 F.4th 19, 41 (1st Cir. 2021); see also
Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281, 306 (2018) (explaining that federal regulation requires that
§ 1226(a) detainees “receive bond hearings at the outset of detention” (citing 8 C.F.R.
§§ 236.1 (d)(1), 1236.1(d)(1))). Therefore, and because respondents have not offered another
authority for petitioner’s detention, the Court will grant the petition and order respondents to
promptly provide petitioner with an individualized bond hearing pursuant to Hernandez-Lara v.
Lyons.

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. Respondents are hereby ORDERED to either release petitioner

or provide him a constitutionally-adequate bond hearing pursuant to Hernandez-Lara v. Lyons, 10 F.4th 19 (1st Cir. 2021) no later than March 11, 2026.

So Ordered.

                          /s/  F. Dennis Saylor IV                  
                          F. Dennis Saylor IV                       

Dated: March 4, 2026 United States District Judge