Gonzalez Rodriguez v. Westling et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
ROBIN GONZALEZ RODRIGUEZ,
Petitioner,
*
*
*
*
Civil Action No. 1:26-cv-11247-IT
v. 	*
*
DAVID WESLING, Field Office Director of
Enforcement and Removal Operations,
Boston Field Office, U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement et al.,
Respondents.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
March 20, 2026
TALWANI, D.J.
Petitioner Robin Gonzalez Rodriguez entered the United States in 2021. Pet. ¶¶ 1, 23
[Doc. No. 1]. On February 20, 2026, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) agents
detained Petitioner while he was delivering a package on behalf of his employer to Hanscom Air
Force Base in Bedford, Massachusetts. Id. ¶¶ 1, 16, 24. ICE took Petitioner to the agency’s field
office in Burlington, Massachusetts, and subsequently transferred him to the Plymouth County
Correctional Facility in Plymouth, Massachusetts, where he is presently held. Id. ¶¶ 2, 24, 28.
Petitioner requested a custody redetermination hearing (a “bond hearing”) pursuant to
8 C.F.R. § 1236. Id. ¶ 29. On March 12, 2026, an Immigration Judge denied Petitioner’s bond
request, stating that “[t]he Immigration Court lacks jurisdiction over the custody redetermination
hearing pursuant to INA 235(b)(2). See Matter of Yajure Hurtado, 29 I&N Dec. 216 (BIA
2025).” Pet., Ex. 1, Order of the Immigr. Judge 1–2 [Doc. No. 1-2].
Case 1:26-cv-11247-IT Document 7 Filed 03/20/26 Page 1 of 3

2
That day, Petitioner filed the pending Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [Doc. No. 1]
seeking release from custody, or, in the alternative, “a bond hearing pursuant to 8 U.S.C.
§ 1226(a).” Id. at ECF 12. Petitioner asserts that (1) he is subject to detention only under 8
U.S.C. § 1226(a), rather than under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2); and (2) in failing to provide Petitioner
with a bond hearing, Respondents have violated Petitioner’s right to due process under the Fifth
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Id. ¶¶ 51–57.
In their abbreviated Response [Doc. No. 6], Respondents “submit that the legal issues
present in this Petition are similar to those recently addressed by this Court in Doe v. Moniz[,
800 F. Supp. 3d 203 (D. Mass. 2025)] and Escobar v. Hyde, No. 25-cv-12620-IT, 2025 WL
2823324 (D. Mass. Oct. 3, 2025).” Id. at 1. Respondents acknowledge that “[s]hould the Court
follow its reasoning in Doe v. Moniz and Escobar v. Hyde, it would reach the same result here.”
Id. at 1–2.
In a footnote, Respondents argue that, in the alternative, “the Court should dismiss this
Petition because Petitioner appears to be a member of the class certified in Guerrero Orellana v.
Moniz, Civil Action No. 25-cv-12664-PBS, 2025 WL 3687757, at *10 (D. Mass. Dec. 19,
2025)[,]” although Respondents “recognize that this argument was rejected by the Guerrero
Orellana court in its order granting class certification [on October 30, 2025].” Id. at 2 n.2. The
court takes judicial notice of that case.
In Guerrero Orellana, a judge in this District issued a partial final judgment declaring that
class members are not subject to detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) but under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1226(a) and are thus entitled to “access to consideration for release on bond and/or conditions
before immigration officers and Immigration Judges.” __ F. Supp. 3d __, 2025 WL 3687757, at
*10 (D. Mass. Dec. 19. 2025); see Guerrero Orellana v. Moniz, No. 25-cv-12664-PBS, Doc. No.
Case 1:26-cv-11247-IT Document 7 Filed 03/20/26 Page 2 of 3

3
144 (D. Mass. Jan. 21, 2026) (clarifying that the certified class “includes all individuals who
satisfied the class definition on or after September 22, 2025, or who satisfy the class definition in
the future”). The court finds nothing in this declaratory judgment to restrict its habeas
jurisdiction to ensure that Petitioner is not held in custody on grounds found unlawful by this
court or in contravention of the declaratory judgment in Guerrero Orellana. See Arbe Vilchez v.
Moniz, No. 26-cv-10571-IT, 2026 WL 381828, at *2–3 (D. Mass. Feb. 11, 2026); Moura v.
Moniz, No. 25-cv-14011-IT, 2026 WL 177862, at *4 (D. Mass. Jan. 22, 2026).
Accordingly, pursuant to this court’s jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, and consistent
with the declaratory judgment ordered in Guerrero Orellana, the Petition [Doc. No. 1] is
GRANTED as follows:
No later than March 27, 2026, Petitioner must be provided a bond hearing pursuant to
8 U.S.C. § 1226 or, if the immigration judge declines to conduct a bond hearing pursuant to
8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), Respondents shall so advise the court by that date so that his court may
conduct the bond hearing. Any decision by the immigration judge to retain Petitioner in custody
following a bond hearing pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) shall set forth the reasons for the
continued detention.
Respondents shall submit a status report on this matter no later than March 31, 2026.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
March 20, 2026 	/s/ Indira Talwani
United States District Judge
Case 1:26-cv-11247-IT Document 7 Filed 03/20/26 Page 3 of 3