1:25-cv-13161•Luna Banegas v. McDonald et al
Full text
United States District Court
District of Massachusetts
Luis Humberto Luna Banegas ,
Petitioner ,
v .
Joseph D . McDonald, Jr . , et al . ,
Respondents .
---------------------
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civil Action No.
25-13161-NMG
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
GORTON, J.
I n his petition for writ of habeas corpus (Docket No . 1)
petitioner Luis Humberto Luna Banegas (" petitioner " or
" Banegas " ) contends that Joseph D. McDonald , Jr . and other named
respondents (" respondents " ) have violated his s tatuto r y and due
process rights by refusing to gra n t h im a bond h earing .
Respondent asserts that petitioner is detained pursuant to 8
U. S . C . §1225(b) (1) (" §1225(b) " ) , while petitioner insists t h a t
he is elig i ble for such a hearing under 8 U. S . C . §1226 (a )
(" §1226 (a ) " ) For the reasons that f o l low , the pe t it io n will b e
denied.
I . Background
On August 18 , 2024 , petitioner entered the United States by
crossing the southern border at an unauthorized location . Later
- 1 -
Case 1:25-cv-13161-NMG Document 11 Filed 11/21/25 Page 1 of 9that same day , Uni t ed States Customs and Border Patrol ("CBP " )
agents encountered petitioner near Rio Grande City , Texas , along
the southern border . CBP arrested and detained petitioner
pursuant to §1225(b) (1) and issued to him a Notice and Order of
Expedited Removal . Several days later , while being processed
for Expedited Removal , petitioner expressed a fear of
persecution or torture if he were to be returned to Honduras .
Thereafter , United States Citizenship and Immigration
Services (" USCIS " ) found that petitioner had presented a
credible fear of persecution or torture and issued to him a
Notice to Appear , which informed him that he was inadmissible
under 8 U. S . C . §1182 . On September 11 , 2024 , petitioner was
released from custody on humanitarian parole under 8 U. S . C .
§1182(d) (5) but remained subject to monitoring as an alternative
to detention . On September 23 , 2024 , users filed the Notice to
Appear in immigration court which automatically vacated the
Notice and Order of Expedited Removal and placed petitioner into
full removal proceedings under 8 U. S.C . §1229(a) .
Petitioner violated his monitoring conditions on at least
ten different occa si ons over the course of the next year . On
October 15 , 2025 , during a scheduled check - in at the Immigration
and Customs Enforcement (" ICE " ) office in Burlington ,
Massachus ett s , agents terminated petitioner ' s parole due to his
- 2 -
Case 1:25-cv-13161-NMG Document 11 Filed 11/21/25 Page 2 of 9repeated monitoring violations and then re - detained him pursuant to §1225 (b) (1). II. Jurisdiction The government argues that this Court does not have jurisdiction because , in his petition , petitioner does not name his immediate custodian . He names Joseph D. McDonald , Jr ., the Sheriff of Plymouth County and Facility Head of the Plymouth County Correctional Center but not Antone Moniz , the Superintendent of the Plymouth County Correctional Center , where he is currently incarcerated . In habeas cases , the immediate custodian and pr oper respondent is the individual with "day - to - day " control over the impriso ned individual . Vasquez v . Reno , 233 F . 3d 688 , 691 , 696 ( 1st Cir . 2000). The so - called immediate custodian rule prevents petitioner from naming the Attorney General or some other remote supervisory official and from filing his petition outside the district of confinement . Rumsfeld v . Padilla , 542 U. S . 426 , 430 (2004) . This rule serves the important purpose of preventing forum shopping by habeas petitioners . Id . For the purpose of determining jurisdiction in this case , it appears that the naming of Sheriff McDonald does satisfy the immediate custodian rule because (1) other courts have found Sheriff McDonald to be the actual custodian of the Plymouth County Correctional Facility , see Anim v . McDonald , No. 11- - 3 - Case 1:25-cv-13161-NMG Document 11 Filed 11/21/25 Page 3 of 9
10017 - JLT , 201 1 U. S . Dist . L EXIS 2 158 , a t *1 - 2 (D . Mass . Jan . 10 , 2011) and the government has not challenged jurisdiction in those cases in which he has been the named respondent ; (2) Sheriff McDo na ld does have day - to - day control over the facility based on the description on its webs it e , and (3) petitioner does not appear to this Court to be forum shopping . Thus , the Court concludes it has jurisdiction in this case and will proceed to the merits of t he petition . III. Legal Standard Section 1225 applies to " applicants for admission ," who are defined as noncitizens " present in the United States who [have] not been admitted ." §1225 (a) (1) . Section 1 225 (b) (1) " applies to aliens initially determined to be inadmissible due to fraud , misrepresentation , or lack of valid documentation ." Jennings v . Rodriguez , 583 U. S . 281 , 287 (20 18 ) (quoting § 1 225(b) (1)) . Individuals sub ject to §1225(b) (1) are normally placed into Expedited Removal , without further hearing or review , but those who indicate an intention to apply for asylum or express a fear of persecution are referred for an asylum interview . If the interviewer finds a credible fear of persecution , the alien is detained for further consideration of that app li cation . §1225 (b) (1) (B) (ii) . An alien detained under § 1 225(b) may be released only if he is paroled for significant public benefit or urg ent humanitar ian - 4 - Case 1:25-cv-13161-NMG Document 11 Filed 11/21/25 Page 4 of 9
reasons under §1182(d) (5) (A) . Such parole is not regarded as an admission of the alien and may be terminated upon accomplishment of the purpose for which parole was authorized or when in the opinion of one of [certain specified Department of Homeland Security] officials . .. , neither humanitarian reasons nor public benefit warrants the continued presence of the [noncitizen] in the United States . 8 C.F . R. §212 . 5(e) (2) (i) The Department of Homeland Security must provide written notice to the noncitizen and he or she is then restored to his or her pre - parole status . Id . Section 1226(a) establishes a discretionary detention framework fo r aliens arrested and detained pending removal proceedings. Under that provision , the Attorney General may continue to detain the alien , release him on bond or releas e him on parole . §§1226(a) (1)-(2) . The arresting immigration officer makes an initial custody determination but non - citizens have the right to request a custody redetermination (i.e ., bond ) hearing before an immigration judge . See 8 C . F . R . §§1236 . l(c) (8) , (d) (1) . This Court recently held that §1226(a) , rather than §1225(b) , applies to aliens who are detained while residing in this country while §1225(b) applies to those detained at the border. See , e . g ., Lopez - Monteros v . Hyde , No . 25 - cv - 12629 - NMG (D . Mass . Oct . 27 , 2025) . - 5 - Case 1:25-cv-13161-NMG Document 11 Filed 11/21/25 Page 5 of 9
IV. Analysis a. Statutory Rights Petitioner contends that , although he was initial ly detained pursuant to § 1 225(b) (1) , once he entered full removal proceedings under §1229a , the statutory authority for detention became §1226(a) , thereby entitling him to a bond hearing under §1226(a) . The government rejoins that petitioner was detained under §1225(b) (1) under which detention is mandatory . The government is correct . Petitioner offers no support for his conte nt ion that the statutory authority shifted to §1226(a) and nothing in the statutory scheme indicates that an alien in §1229 proceedings is to be detained under §1226 . Indeed , another session of this Court recently determined , based on indistinguishable facts , that §1225(b) (1) is the applicable statute rather than §1226(a) . Rincon v . Hyde , 2025 WL 3122784 , at *7 (D . Mass . Nov . 7 , 2025) . To the extent petitioner argues that his parole after arrival placed him under §1226(a) rather than §1225(b) , he is mistaken . The statute under which he was paroled explicitly provides that upon termination of parole , the alien is to be re - placed into the custody from which he was paroled . Martinez v . Hyde , 792 F . Supp . 3d 211 , 216 (D . Mass . 2025) . Thus , contrary to petitioner ' s assertion that there is no statutory support for DHS ' s theory that detention is to be restored , it is well - - 6 - Case 1:25-cv-13161-NMG Document 11 Filed 11/21/25 Page 6 of 9
established that the humanitarian parole statute does just that . See , e . g ., Matter of Q. Li , 29 I . & N. Dec . 66 , 70 (BIA 2025 ) Having established that §1225(b) (1) is the applicable statute , the next question is whether petitioner has been afforded the statutory rights to which he is entitled . It is clear that he has . Section 1225(b) (1) provides that aliens must be detained for " further consideration of the application for asylum ," which in petitioner ' s case will occur in his §1229 removal proceedings . His detention is accordingly mandated under §1225(b) until the resolution of his removal proceedings and §1225(b) (1) does not provide for bond hearings . Jennings , 583 U.S . at 297 . b. Constitutional Rights Petitioner , relying on case law , also claims that his detention without a bond hearing violates the Due Process Clause . Hernandez - Lara v . Lyons , 10 F . 4th 19 , 41 (1st Cir . 2021) ( holding that the Due Process clause entitles a noncitizen detained pursuant to §1226(a) to a bond hearing) . That argument is , however , premised on his incorrect assertion that he is subject to §1226. As explained above , petitioner ' s detention is pursuant to §1225(b) and that distinction is dispositive of his constitutional claim . An alien ' s due process rights do not arise from any particular statute but rather from his entry into , or physical - 7 - Case 1:25-cv-13161-NMG Document 11 Filed 11/21/25 Page 7 of 9
presence in , th e country . Depending on the circumstances , eit her §1 225(b) or §1226 becom es applicable . Because §1226 , by its terms , applies to aliens who are alre ady present in the cou ntry , those aliens are entitled to due process protections . In co ntrast , aliens apprehended while illega l ly crossing the border ha ve not entered the country and thus are n ot afforded the same panoply of due process rights . That is true even if the alien has remained in the country for a period of time und er certain restricted conditions . The so-called " entry fiction doctrine " provides that those who are apprehended shortly a fter ille gally entering the country are nonetheless treated as if t hey were stopped at the border and detained pending further cons iderat ion . OHS v . Thuraissigiam , 591 U. S . 103 , 140 (2020) Thi s Co ur t agrees with other judges in this district that the entry fiction doctrine makes sense in a world of uncertain b o rders , see Rincon , 2025 WL 3122784 , at *6 , and concludes that it is appropriately ap pli ca ble in this and similar situations because it i nu res to the benefit of the petitioner . If the doctrine were not applicable , Banegas would have had to be detaine d at the b orde r for weeks , months or years whil e USCIS consid ered his appl ica ti on . Instead , he was granted parole in this country during the pendency of his application under the statutory condition that , if he became ineligible for asylum for - 8 - Case 1:25-cv-13161-NMG Document 11 Filed 11/21/25 Page 8 of 9
whatever reason , he would revert ba ck to the entry stage , subject to detention under §12 25 . Because of the entry fictio n doctrine , mandatory detention of petitioner under §1225 does not deprive him of due process or run afoul of the Constitution . Upon revocation of his humanitarian parole , petiti o ner was p lace d in custody pursuant to §1225(b) (1) just as though he had been stopped at the border and his due process rights were significantly curtailed accordingly . Thuraissigiam , 591 U. S . at 140 . Those rights , whateve r they may be , do not include t h e right to a bond hearing . ORDER For the foregoing reasons , the petition for writ of hab eas cor pus (Docket No . 1) is DENIED. So ordered. Nathaniel M. Gorton Senior United States District Judge Dated : November 2/ , 2025 - 9 - Case 1:25-cv-13161-NMG Document 11 Filed 11/21/25 Page 9 of 9
Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.