Alarcon v. Moniz et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
EDWIN ALARCON,
Petitioner,
*
*
*
*
*
Civil Action No. 1:25-cv-13294-IT
v. 	*
*
ANTONE MONIZ, Superintendent, Plymouth
County Correctional Facility; PATRICIA
HYDE, Field Office Director; TODD M.
LYONS, Acting Director U.S. Immigration
and Customs Enforcement; KRISTI L.
NOEM, U.S. Secretary of Homeland
Security; PAMELA BONDI, U.S. Attorney
General; DONALD J. TRUMP, U.S.
President,
Respondents.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
November 17, 2025
TALWANI, D.J.
Petitioner Edwin Alarcon is a Guatemalan national residing in Massachusetts. Pet. ¶¶ 1–2
[Doc. No. 1]. Petitioner alleges, and Respondents do not contest, that, “[o]n information and
belief, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) currently hold[s] Petitioner in custody in
the District of Massachusetts.” Id. ¶ 3; Respondents’ Abbrev. Resp. 1 [Doc. No. 8].
On November 5, 2025, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [Doc. No. 1]
with this court. Petitioner contends that he “is subject to detention, if at all, pursuant to 8 U.S.C.
§ 1226(a)” and that “under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), Petitioner must, upon his request, receive a
custody redetermination hearing[.]” Id. ¶¶ 10–11. “Petitioner requests such a bond hearing.”
Id. ¶ 12.
Case 1:25-cv-13294-IT Document 9 Filed 11/17/25 Page 1 of 2

2
In response, Respondents assert that Petitioner’s detention is authorized pursuant to 8
U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A). Respondents’ Abbrev. Response 2 [Doc. No. 8]. Yet, Respondents also
concede that this case is materially similar” to Doe v. Moniz, __ F. Supp. 3d __, 2025 WL
2576819 (D. Mass. Sept. 5, 2025), where, Respondents recognize, this court “held that § 1225
did not govern petitioner’s detention.” Respondents’ Abbrev. Response 2 [Doc. No. 8].
Accordingly, Respondents agree that “[s]hould the Court apply the reasoning of Doe, it would
reach the same result here, such that § 1226 would govern Petitioner’s detention.” Id.
Nothing in the record indicates that Petitioner was detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1225 rather
than 8 U.S.C. § 1226. The court finds the reasoning in Doe remains correct. The Board of
Immigration Appeals’ decision in Matter of Yajure Hurtado, 29 I&N Dec. 216 (BIA 2025), is
unpersuasive and does not change the analysis. See Elias Escobar, 2025 WL 2823324, at *3
(citing cases reaching the same conclusion).
The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [Doc. No. 1] is therefore GRANTED as follows.
No later than November 24, 2025, Alarcon must be provided a bond hearing pursuant to 8 U.S.C.
§ 1226 or, if the immigration judge declines to conduct a bond hearing based on Matter of Yajure
Hurtado, Respondents shall so advise the court by that date so that this court may conduct the
bond hearing. Any decision by the immigration judge to retain Alarcon in custody following a
bond hearing pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226 shall set forth the reasons for the continued detention.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
November 17, 2025 	/s/ Indira Talwani
United States District Judge
Case 1:25-cv-13294-IT Document 9 Filed 11/17/25 Page 2 of 2