Ulices v. Moniz et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
_______________________________________
)
ULICES LENOARDO 	)
ARGUETA BENITEZ, 	)
)
Petitioner, 	)
) 	Civil Action No.
v. 	) 	26-11112-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 Ulices Leonardo Argueta Benitez is a Honduran
national who entered the United States in 2016 by crossing the southern border.
On February 27, 2026, petitioner was 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-11112-FDS Document 7 Filed 03/12/26 Page 1 of 4

2
I. 	Background
Ulices Leonardo Argueta Benitez, a Honduran national, entered the United States at some
point in 2016 by crossing the southern border. (Pet. ¶ 1). The petition does not allege whether
he was encountered by immigration officers at that time. (Id.). Following his entry, petitioner
resided in Massachusetts. (Id. ¶ 11).
On February 27, 2026, petitioner was taken into custody by ICE as he was on his way to
a court hearing in Fall River, Massachusetts. (Id. ¶ 3). He is currently detained at Plymouth
County Correctional Facility in Plymouth, Massachusetts. (Id. ¶ 1, 18).
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; Todd Lyons, Acting Director, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Kristi
Noem, U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security; Pamela Bondi, Attorney General of the United
States; and Donald Trump, President of the United States (Id. ¶¶ 12-18).1
On March 4, 2026, the Court ordered that petitioner not be moved outside this District
without prior notice until further order of the Court. (Dkt. No. 4 at 2-3).
1 The Court notes that “the person who has custody over [the petitioner]” is the only proper respondent. 28
U.S.C. § 2242; see Vasquez v. Reno, 233 F.3d 688, 696 (1st Cir. 2000) (“[A]n alien who seeks a writ of habeas
corpus contesting the legality of his detention by the INS normally must name as the respondent his immediate
custodian, that is, the individual having day-to-day control over the facility in which he is being detained.”);
Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 435 (2004) (“[I]n habeas challenges to present physical confinement—‘core
challenges’—the default rule is that the proper respondent is the warden of the facility where the prisoner is being
held, not the Attorney General or some other remote supervisory official.”). Todd Lyons, Kristi Noem, Pamela
Bondi, and Donald Trump are national officials and have no direct supervision over ICE detainees in Massachusetts.
The Court will therefore dismiss the claims against those respondents.
Case 1:26-cv-11112-FDS Document 7 Filed 03/12/26 Page 2 of 4

3
On March 10, 2026, respondents answered the petition. (Resp. Habeas Pet., Dkt. No. 6).
Respondents conceded that “this Court’s decision in [De Andrade v. Moniz] and [Perez v. Moniz]
are instructive on this case for reaching a decision.” (Id. at 1).
II. 	Analysis
For the reasons discussed in the Court’s decision in De Andrade v. Moniz, 802 F. Supp.
3d 325 (D. Mass. 2025), and those of hundreds of courts across the country, see Barco Mercado
v. Francis, 2025 WL 3295903, at *4, app. A (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 26, 2025) (collecting 350 cases
decided by over 160 different judges), non-citizens who unlawfully entered the United States 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 is
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.
Case 1:26-cv-11112-FDS Document 7 Filed 03/12/26 Page 3 of 4

4
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
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 March 19, 2026.
So Ordered.
/s/ F. Dennis Saylor IV
F. Dennis Saylor IV
Dated: March 12, 2026 	United States District Judge
Case 1:26-cv-11112-FDS Document 7 Filed 03/12/26 Page 4 of 4