Sinecio Martinez v. Hyde et al

United 	States 	District Court
District 	of Massachusetts
Leonel Andres 	Sinecio Martinez,
Petitioner,
v .
Patricia 	Hyde, 	et 	al . ,
Respondents.
---------------------
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civil Action No.
25-13035-NMG
MEMORANDUM 	& ORDER
GORTON, 	J.
In 	his 	petition 	for 	writ 	of 	habeas 	corpus 	(Docket 	No . 	1) ,
petitioner 	Leonel 	Andres 	Sinecio 	Martinez 	("petitioner " 	or
"Martinez " ) 	claims 	that 	Patricia 	Hyde 	and 	other 	named
respondents 	("respondents " ) 	have 	violated 	his 	d u e 	process 	rights
by 	detaining 	him 	without 	a 	bond 	hear i ng , 	to 	which 	he 	claims
entitlement 	under 	8 	U. S . C . 	§1226 	("§1226 " ) . 	Respondents 	reply
that 	petitioner 	is 	lawfully 	detained 	under 	8 	U. S . C . 	§1231
( "§1231 " ). 	For 	the 	reasons 	that 	follow , 	the 	petition 	will 	be
DENIED .
I. 	Facts
Petitioner 	is 	a 	native 	of 	El 	Salvador . 	He 	firs t 	entered
the 	United 	States 	in 	February , 	2016 . 	He 	was 	apprehended 	by 	U. S .
- 	1 	-
Case 1:25-cv-13035-NMG Document 18 Filed 12/23/25 Page 1 of 6

Border 	Patrol 	("USBP") 	while 	crossing 	the 	southern 	border 	and
was 	detained 	pursuant 	to 	8 	U.S . C. 	§1225 . 	He 	later 	claimed 	a
fear 	of 	return 	to 	El 	Salvador 	and 	was 	referred 	to 	the 	United
States 	Citizenship 	and 	Immigration 	Services 	("USCIS ") 	for 	a
credible 	fear 	interview. 	users 	determined 	Martinez 	did 	not
present 	a 	credible 	fear 	of 	persecution 	or 	torture 	in 	El
Salvador . 	He 	was 	removed 	from 	the 	United 	States 	in 	May , 	2016 .
On 	September 	22, 	2016 , 	petitioner 	re-entered 	the 	United
States 	at 	a 	place 	which 	was 	not 	a 	port 	of 	entry . 	He 	was 	again
apprehended 	by 	USBP 	and 	was 	issued 	a 	Form 	I - 871 , 	Notice 	of
Intent/Decision 	to 	Reinstate 	Prior 	Order . 	On 	September 	24 ,
2016 , 	petitioner 	was 	released 	on 	an 	Order 	of 	Supervision
("OSUP " ) .
In 	October , 	2025, 	during 	a 	routine 	check - in, 	ICE 	revoked
petitioner ' s 	OSUP 	after 	determining 	that 	there 	were 	changed
circumstances 	such 	that 	there 	is 	a 	significant 	likelihood 	of
removal 	in 	the 	reasonably 	foreseeable 	future . 	ICE 	detained
petitioner 	pursuant 	to 	§1231 	and 	transferred 	him 	to 	Plymouth
County 	Correctional 	Facility . 	On 	November 	8 , 	2025 , 	ICE 	received
a 	valid 	travel 	document 	for 	petitioner 	to 	be 	removed 	from 	the
United 	States 	to 	El 	Salvador 	and , 	on 	the 	same 	day, 	ICE 	referred
Martinez 	to 	users 	for 	a 	reasonable 	fear 	interview. 	On 	November
25 , 	2025 , 	users 	notified 	petitioner 	of 	its 	determination 	that 	he
did 	not 	have 	a 	reasonable 	fear 	and 	petitioner 	requested 	a 	review
- 	2 	-
Case 1:25-cv-13035-NMG Document 18 Filed 12/23/25 Page 2 of 6

of 	that 	finding 	by 	an 	Immigration 	Judge . 	Proceedings 	in
Immigration 	Court 	for 	the 	reasonable 	fear 	interview 	were
recently 	initiated .
II . 	Legal 	Standard
The 	detention 	of 	aliens 	pending 	removal 	proceedings 	is
governed 	by 	either 	8 	U.S . C. 	§1225 	or 	§1226. 	Section 	1225
applies 	to 	aliens 	who 	have 	not 	effected 	an 	entry 	while 	§1226
covers 	aliens 	who 	have 	been 	res i ding 	in 	the 	United 	States . 	The
latter 	provides 	for 	a 	bond 	hearing 	while 	the 	former 	does 	not .
The 	detention 	of 	aliens 	who 	have 	been 	ordered 	removed, 	on
the 	other 	hand , 	is 	governed 	by 	§1231 . 	That 	statutory 	provision
specifically 	contemplates 	an 	expedited 	removal 	procedure 	for
aliens 	who 	illegally 	reenter 	the 	country 	after 	previously 	having
been 	removed 	under 	an 	order 	of 	removal . 	In 	such 	cases , 	the
prior 	order 	of 	removal 	is 	reinstated 	as 	of 	its 	original 	date 	and
is 	not 	subject 	to 	being 	reopened 	or 	reviewed . 	§1231(a) (5). 	The
alien 	is 	removable 	under 	the 	reinstated 	order 	at 	any 	time 	after
the 	reentry . 	Id .
Under 	§1231 , 	ICE 	may 	release 	the 	alien 	on 	an 	OSUP 	should 	it
find 	that : 	(1) 	travel 	documents 	for 	the 	alien 	are 	not 	available
or , 	in 	the 	opinion 	of 	the 	agency , 	immediate 	removal 	is 	not
practicable 	or 	in 	the 	public 	interest ; 	(2) 	the 	detainee 	is
presently 	non - violent 	and 	likely 	to 	remain 	nonvio l ent 	if
released; 	(3) 	the 	detainee 	is 	not 	likely 	to 	pose 	a 	threat 	to 	the
- 	3 	-
Case 1:25-cv-13035-NMG Document 18 Filed 12/23/25 Page 3 of 6

community 	if 	released ; 	(4) 	the 	detainee 	is 	not 	likely 	to 	violate
the 	conditions 	of 	release , 	and 	(5) 	the 	detainee 	does 	not 	pose 	a
significant 	flight 	risk 	if 	released. 	8 	C . F . R. 	§241.4(e). 	An
OSUP 	may 	also 	be 	issued 	where 	ICE 	determines, 	pursuant 	to 	8
C. F . R. 	§241 . 13 , 	that 	there 	is 	no 	significant 	likelihood 	that 	an
alien 	under 	a 	final 	order 	of 	removal 	can 	be 	removed 	in 	the
reasonably 	foreseeable 	future .
ICE 	may 	revoke 	an 	OSUP 	at 	the 	discretion 	of 	the 	revoking
official 	when 	(1) 	the 	purposes 	of 	release 	have 	been 	served ; 	(2)
the 	alien 	violates 	any 	condition 	of 	release; 	(3) 	it 	is
appropriate 	to 	enforce 	a 	removal 	order 	or 	commence 	removal
proceedings , 	or 	(4) 	the 	conduct 	of 	the 	alien , 	or 	any 	other
circumstance, 	indicates 	that 	release 	is 	no 	longer 	appropriate. 	8
C. F.R. 	§241.4 (1) (2). 	If 	the 	OSUP 	was 	issued 	pursuant 	to 	8
C. F.R . 	§241 . 13 , 	however , 	to 	revoke 	it , 	ICE 	must 	determine 	that ,
based 	on 	changed 	circumstances , 	there 	is 	a 	significant
likelihood 	that 	the 	alien 	may 	be 	removed 	in 	the 	reasonably
foreseeable 	future. 	8 	C . F.R. 	§241.13(i) (2) .
III . 	Analysis
Petitioner's 	assertion 	that 	he 	is 	subject 	to 	§1226 	is
mistaken. 	Because 	he 	has 	previously 	been 	removed 	from 	the
United 	States , 	his 	current 	detention 	is 	governed 	by 	§1231 , 	and
that 	statute 	does 	not 	provide 	for 	a 	bond 	hearing 	pending
deportation. 	Further, 	petitioner 	has 	been 	detained 	for 	two
- 	4 	-
Case 1:25-cv-13035-NMG Document 18 Filed 12/23/25 Page 4 of 6

months , 	and 	thus 	his 	detention 	is 	well - within 	the 	pres u mptively
reasonable 	six - month 	detention 	period 	e st ablished 	by 	Zadvydas 	v .
Davis . 	533 	U. S . 	678 	(2001) . 	On 	its 	face , 	petitioner ' s 	detention
is 	plainly 	authorized 	by 	statute .
An 	additional 	factor 	needs 	to 	be 	considered . 	When 	revoking
Martinez ' s 	OSUP , 	ICE 	stated 	that 	the 	revocation 	was 	justified
due 	to 	changed 	circumstances 	mak i ng 	his 	deporta ti on 	a
significant 	likelihood 	in 	the 	reasonably 	foreseeable 	future.
The 	Court 	deduces 	that 	ICE , 	by 	u s i ng 	such 	language , 	mistakenly
invoked 	8 	C.F.R . 	§241 . 13(i) (2) 	when 	notifying 	petitioner 	of 	the
revocation 	of 	his 	OSUP .
Aside 	from 	the 	use 	of 	that 	language 	in 	the 	OSUP 	revocation ,
the 	Court 	finds 	it 	extremely 	unlikely 	that 	the 	OSUP 	was 	issued
pursuant 	to 	8 	C. F . R . 	§241 . 13 . 	That 	is 	because 	1) 	the 	OSUP 	was
granted 	only 	two 	days 	after 	petitioner 	was 	apprehended 	and 	2)
petitioner 	had 	been 	removed 	to 	El 	Salvador 	a 	mere 	three 	mo n ths
earlier 	and 	there 	is 	no 	indication 	that 	his 	removability 	would
have 	changed 	during 	that 	period .
Accordingly , 	the 	Court 	concludes 	that 	the 	OSUP 	was 	granted
under 	§241 . 4 	rather 	than 	§241 . 13 	and , 	under 	that 	regulation , 	ICE
could 	properly 	revoke 	petitioner ' s 	OSUP 	to 	enforce 	its 	prior
removal 	order 	without 	making 	a 	finding 	that , 	due 	to 	changed
circumstances, 	there 	is 	a 	significant 	likelihood 	of 	petitioner ' s
removal 	in 	the 	reasonably 	foreseeable 	future .
- 	5 	-
Case 1:25-cv-13035-NMG Document 18 Filed 12/23/25 Page 5 of 6

• 	• r 	.,
ORDER
For 	the 	forgoing 	reasons , 	the 	petition 	for 	writ 	of 	habeas
corpus 	(Docket 	No. 	1) 	is 	DENIED.
So 	ordered.
Nathaniel 	M. 	Gor 7n
Senior 	United 	States 	District 	Judge
Dated : 	December 2J , 	2025
- 	6 	-
Case 1:25-cv-13035-NMG Document 18 Filed 12/23/25 Page 6 of 6