Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Mariana Pinheiro Costa Silva,
Petitioner
v. 	Case No. 26-cv-458-SM-AJ
Opinion No. 2026 DNH 074
Superintendent, Strafford County
Department of Corrections, et al.,
Respondents
O R D E R
Petitioner, Mariana Pinheiro Costa Silva, says she came to
the United States in 2009, and is the subject of a pending I-130
Petition for Alien Relative filed on her behalf. 	She also has a
matter pending in probate or family court in Massachusetts. 	ICE
arrested Petitioner on her way to attend a hearing in that civil
matter on June 2, 2026, causing her to miss the hearing. 	She is
presently in ICE custody in New Hampshire and was told she may
be transferred out of state. 	Petitioner seeks an order
directing respondents to release her immediately from ICE
custody or, in the alternative, an order directing the federal
respondents to provide her with a prompt, constitutionally
adequate bond hearing before a neutral decisionmaker. 	See
generally 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 	She also seeks a writ of habeas
Case 1:26-cv-00458-SM-AJ Document 6 Filed 06/15/26 Page 1 of 4

2
corpus ad prosequendum ordering Respondents to transport her to
hearings in her pending civil proceeding in Massachusetts.
On June 3, 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 her apparent membership in the class
certified in Guerrero Orellana v. Moniz, 813 F. Supp. 3d 185 (D.
Mass. 2025), and/or her 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).
The federal respondents filed their response to the order
to show cause on June 10, 2026, in which they say that
petitioner overstayed her visa, is detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C.
§ 1226, and is eligible for a bond hearing before and
immigration judge. 	Indeed, a bond hearing is scheduled to take
place on June 16, 2026.
Conclusion
Petitioner has been granted a bond hearing, scheduled to
take place on June 16, 2026. 	Accordingly, her request for such
relief is moot. 	Consistent with prior orders of this court, at
that hearing, the government will bear the burden to either: (1)
Case 1:26-cv-00458-SM-AJ Document 6 Filed 06/15/26 Page 2 of 4

3
prove by a preponderance that petitioner is a flight risk; or
(2) prove by clear and convincing evidence that she 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).
To the extent petitioner seeks an order directing her
immediate release, that request is denied without prejudice.
The court finds that a bond hearing before an IJ is sufficient
to protect her rights at this stage.
Finally, for the reasons set forth in the government’s
response, a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum to allow
petitioner to attend a civil matter in the Massachusetts probate
court is not appropriate. 	See generally United States v.
Larkin, 978 F.2d 964, 968 (7th Cir. 1992) (“A prosequendum writ
permits the government to remove a prisoner to the proper
jurisdiction for prosecution, while a testificandum writ grants
custody over a prisoner for the purpose of providing testimony
before a grand jury, in a civil case, or in a criminal case
involving other defendants.”) (citations omitted).
The government shall file a status report on or before
Monday, June 22, 2026.
Case 1:26-cv-00458-SM-AJ Document 6 Filed 06/15/26 Page 3 of 4

4
SO ORDERED.
____________________________
Steven J. McAuliffe
United States District Judge
June 15, 2026
cc: 	Counsel of Record
Case 1:26-cv-00458-SM-AJ Document 6 Filed 06/15/26 Page 4 of 4