Pereira v. Moniz et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
_______________________________________
)
RENATO PEREIRA, 	)
)
Petitioner, 	)
) 	Civil Action No.
v. 	) 	26-10008-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 Renato Pereira is a Brazilian national who entered the
United States on or around April 21, 2021, near San Luis, Arizona, at which time he was
encountered by immigration officials and released into the country on recognizance.
Recently, petitioner was arrested and 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.
Case 1:26-cv-10008-FDS Document 13 Filed 02/05/26 Page 1 of 4

2
I. 	Background
Renato Pereira, a Brazilian citizen, entered the United States on or about April 27, 2021,
near San Luis, Arizona. (Pet. ¶ 8; Notice to Appear at 1, Dkt. No. 11-1). At that time, he was
encountered by immigration officials, who issued a Notice to Appear charging him as
inadmissible. (Am. Pet. ¶¶ 8-9). He was then released into the country on an Order of Release
on Recognizance. (Id. ¶ 10). He has resided in the United States continuously since his entry.
(Id. ¶ 12). His next immigration court hearing is scheduled for February 17, 2026. (Id. ¶ 16).
On January 2, 2026, ICE took Pereira into custody following a check-in at ICE’s field
office in Burlington, Massachusetts. (Id. ¶ 14). He is currently detained at Plymouth County
Correctional Facility in Plymouth, Massachusetts, and he has not received a bond hearing since
he was detained. (Id. ¶ 15).
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, Homeland Security
Investigations for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Todd Lyons, Acting Director,
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; and Kristi Noem, U.S. Secretary of Homeland
Security. (Id. ¶¶ 29-33).
On January 5, 2026, the Court ordered that petitioner not be moved outside this District
without prior notice until further order of the Court. (Dkt. No. 5 at 2-3). Respondents opposed
the petition on January 7, 2026. (Dkt. No. 7).
On January 21, 2026, the Court ordered petitioner to amend his petition to include
sufficient factual allegations to allow the Court to consider his claim for relief. (Dkt. No. 10).
Petitioner filed an amended petition on February 3, 2026. (Dkt. No. 11). Respondents
filed a response to that petition on February 4, 2026, in which they conceded that “this case is
Case 1:26-cv-10008-FDS Document 13 Filed 02/05/26 Page 2 of 4

3
materially similar to [De Andrade v. Moniz],” and that “[s]hould the Court apply the reasoning of
[De Andrade], . . . it would likely reach the same result here.” (Dkt. No. 12 at 3).
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
was 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
Case 1:26-cv-10008-FDS Document 13 Filed 02/05/26 Page 3 of 4

4
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 February 12, 2026.
So Ordered.
/s/ F. Dennis Saylor IV
F. Dennis Saylor IV
Dated: February 5, 2026 	United States District Judge
Case 1:26-cv-10008-FDS Document 13 Filed 02/05/26 Page 4 of 4