Lin v. Noem et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
SHANBIN LIN,
Petitioner,
*
*
*
*
Civil Action No. 1:26-cv-10830-IT
v. 	*
*
KRISTI L. NOEM, Secretary, U.S.
Department of Homeland Security; TODD M.
LYONS, Acting Director, U.S. Immigration
and Customs Enforcement; DAVID
WESLING, Acting Boston Field Office
Director, U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement; JOSEPH D. MCDONALD,
Sheriff of Plymouth County, Massachusetts;
and ANTONE MONIZ, Superintendent,
Plymouth County Correctional Facility,
Respondents.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
February 23, 2026
TALWANI, D.J.
Petitioner Shanbin Lin “was recently detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (‘ICE’)” and is presently held at the Plymouth County Correctional Facility in
Plymouth, Massachusetts. Pet. ¶¶ 1, 8 [Doc. No. 1]. On February 2, 2026, an immigration judge,
“in reliance on” Matter of Yajure Hurtado, 29 I&N Dec. 216 (B.I.A. 2025), found that Petitioner
was an “applicant for admission” and therefore subject to mandatory detention pursuant to
8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). Pet. ¶¶ 3–4 [Doc. No. 1].
On February 13, 2026, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [Doc. No. 1],
in which he seeks, inter alia, immediate release from custody or, in the alternative, “an
appropriate bond hearing . . . comporting with due process and statute.” Id. at ECF 8. As
grounds therefor, Petitioner asserts that (1) in failing to provide him with a bond hearing,
Case 1:26-cv-10830-IT Document 8 Filed 02/23/26 Page 1 of 3

2
Respondents have violated Petitioner’s procedural and substantive due process rights under the
Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; and (2) Petitioner is subject to detention under 8
U.S.C. § 1226(a), rather than under 8 U.S.C. § 1225, and is therefore entitled to a bond hearing at
which an immigration judge must determine whether he poses a danger to the community or
presents a flight risk. See id. ¶¶ 23–34.
In their abbreviated Response [Doc. No. 7], Respondents “submit that the legal issues
present in this Petitioner are similar to those recently addressed by this Court in Doe v. Moniz[,
800 F. Supp. 3d 203 (D. Mass. 2025)].” Id. at 1. Respondents therefore acknowledge that
“[s]hould the Court follow its reasoning in Doe, it would reach the same result here.” Id.1
Where the court finds the reasoning in Doe remains correct, and where nothing in the
record before the court indicates that Petitioner is detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1225, the Petition
for Writ of Habeas Corpus [Doc. No. 1] is GRANTED as follows: No later than February 27,
2026, Petitioner must be provided a bond hearing pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), or if the
immigration judge again declines to conduct a bond hearing based on Matter of Yajure Hurtado,
29 I&N Dec. 216 (B.I.A. 2025), 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 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 3, 2026.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
1 Petitioner acknowledges that he “has a pending charge for Receiving Stolen property, for which
he has been released on personal recognizance and which has not resulted in a conviction.” Pet.
¶ 20 [Doc. No. 1]. Where Respondents make no mention of this pending charge in their
abbreviated Response [Doc. No. 7] and have not claimed that the charge is the basis for
Petitioner’s detention, the court considers any argument that Petitioner’s detention is mandatory
under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) waived.
Case 1:26-cv-10830-IT Document 8 Filed 02/23/26 Page 2 of 3

3
February 23, 2026 	/s/ Indira Talwani
United States District Judge
Case 1:26-cv-10830-IT Document 8 Filed 02/23/26 Page 3 of 3