Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Venicius Viana Ribeiro,
Petitioner
v. 	Case No. 26-cv-488-SM-TSM
Opinion No. 2026 DNH 079
Christopher Brackett, Superintendent
of the Strafford County Department
of Corrections, et al.,
Respondents
O R D E R
Venicius Viana Ribeiro 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 11, 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
Case 1:26-cv-00488-SM-TSM Document 5 Filed 06/17/26 Page 1 of 3

2
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 16, 2026, in which they maintain that
Destino and Guerrero Orellana were wrongly decided, assert that
petitioner is an “applicant for admission” subject to mandatory
detention pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1225, and object to the court
granting the relief he seeks. 	See Response to Order to Show
Cause (document no. 4). 	Nevertheless, they acknowledge that
petitioner is similarly situated to the petitioner in Destino.
They also concede that if the court were to apply Destino’s
reasoning to the facts presented in this case, it would reach
the same result.
Conclusion
The respondents have failed to show cause why the court
should not order them to afford petitioner a bond hearing before
an immigration judge (IJ). 	Because the court concludes that the
reasoning in Destino applies in this case, the Petition for Writ
of Habeas Corpus (document no. 1) is granted, in part. 	The
respondents are ordered to provide petitioner with a
constitutionally adequate bond hearing before an IJ as soon as
practicable, at which the government will bear the burden to
Case 1:26-cv-00488-SM-TSM Document 5 Filed 06/17/26 Page 2 of 3

3
either: (1) prove by a preponderance that petitioner 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.
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
June 17, 2026
cc: 	Counsel of Record
Case 1:26-cv-00488-SM-TSM Document 5 Filed 06/17/26 Page 3 of 3