1:25-cv-13439•De Araujo v. Noem et al
Full text
United States District Court
District of Massachusetts
Wilson Adao de Araujo,
Petitioner,
v.
Kr i sti Noem, et al.,
Respondents .
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civil Action No .
25-13439-NMG
---------------------
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
GORTON, J.
Wilson Adao de Araujo ("petitioner " or " de Araujo " ) f i led
this petition for writ of habeas corpus , alleging that Kristi
Noem and other named respondents (collectively , " respondents " )
have wrongfully detained him without a bond hearing pursuant to
8 U. S . C . §1225(b) (2). He claims he is entit l ed to a bond
hearing under 8 U. S . C . §1226 . Respondents rejoin that
petitioner is lawfully detained under 8 U. S . C . §123l(a) (5) . For
the reasons that follow , petitioner ' s motion will be DENIED.
I. Facts
The accounts of petitioner ' s immigration history proffered
by the parties are inconsistent . Both agree that petitioner is
a native of Brazil and was apprehended by U. S . Border Patrol
- 1 -
Case 1:25-cv-13439-NMG Document 9 Filed 12/23/25 Page 1 of 4:
("USBP") shortly after unlawfully entering the United States at
the southern border in January , 2023 . That is the extent of the
immigration history provided in de Araujo ' s petition .
The government declares that de Ara u jo did not include all
relevant history in his petition and that the 2023 i mm igration
was not his first unlawful entry into the United States .
According to the government , in 20 1 4 , petitioner applied for
admission at Miami International Airport. He did not possess a
val id entry document aBd expressed no fear of being returned to
Brazil .
U. S . Customs and Border Protection (" CBP " ) determined that
he was inadmissible pursuant to 8 U. S . C. §1182(a) ( 7) (A) (i) (I)
and removed him from the United States pu r suant to 8 U. S . C .
§1225 ( b) (1) . Petitioner was notified that he was prohibited
from seeking entry into the United States for five years and
that after five years , should he seek to return to the U. S ., he
must request and obtain permission from the Secretary of
Homeland Security .
that process .
Petitioner wa s given an alien number du r ing
According to the government , when USBP apprehended
petitioner in January , 2023 , it was unaware of his prior
deportation and issued him a second alien number . He was given
a Notice to Appear , which was filed in the Boston Immigration
Court in March , 2023 .
- 2 -
Case 1:25-cv-13439-NMG Document 9 Filed 12/23/25 Page 2 of 4In November , 2025 , ICE again arrested petitioner after determining that he was incorrectly issued a second alien number and served with the Notice to Appear . He was then served with a Form I - 871 , Notice of Intent/Decision to Reinstate Prior Order [of Removal] under his first alien number pursuant to 8 U.S.C . §1231 (a) (5) . II. Legal Standard Non - citizens who unlawfully reenter the country after previously being removed are subject to expedited removal pursuant to 8 U. S.C . §1231 (a) (5) . The prior order of removal is reinstated as of its original date and may not be reopened or reviewed . G. P . v . Garland , 103 F.4th 898 , 900 (1st Cir . 2024) The government must effectuate that removal within 90 days , during which time the non - citizen ' s detention is mandatory. Detention may be extended beyond 90 days in certain circumstances . 8 U.S . C . §123l(a) (6) entitled to a bond hearing . The detainee is not While 8 U.S . C. §123l(a) (5) applies to non-citizens who have already received a deportation order , 8 U. S.C . §1226 governs the arrest and detention of non - citizens pending a decision on removal. The government may detain an alien , release him on bond or release him on conditional parole , and the alien may request a bond hearing by an immigration judge at any point before a final order of removal is issued . - 3 - Case 1:25-cv-13439-NMG Document 9 Filed 12/23/25 Page 3 of 4
.. III. Analysis Upon consideration of the additional details of petitioner's immigration history provided by the government , it is clear to the Court that petitioner is being lawfully detained under 8 U. S . C . §123l(a) (5) and is not entitled to a bond hearing . The 90 - day removal period has not expired , and even if it had , the government could continue to detain petitioner if appropriate under 8 U.S . C. §123l(a) (6) . The Court declines to address petitioner ' s constitutional and statutory arguments which are premised on the incorrect assumption that petitioner is subject to 8 U. S . C . §1226 . ORDER For the foregoing reasons , de Araujo ' s petition for writ of habeas corpus (Docket No. 1) is DENIED. So ordered. Nathaniel M. Gort ~ Senior United States District Judge Dated: December 23 , 2025 - 4 - Case 1:25-cv-13439-NMG Document 9 Filed 12/23/25 Page 4 of 4
Wondering how this text applies to your situation?
Free consultation, no commitment
Describe your situation. Our team will contact you by email about your consultation.
Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.