Tabares Areiza v. Lyons et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
HAMILTON TABARES AREIZA,
Petitioner,
*
*
*
*
Civil Action No. 1:26-cv-11563-IT
v. 	*
*
ANTONE MONIZ, Superintendent, Plymouth
County Correctional Facility; DAVID
WESLING, Field Office Director; TODD
LYONS, Acting Director, U.S. Immigration
and Customs Enforcement; MARKWAYNE
MULLIN, U.S. Secretary of Homeland
Security; and TODD BLANCHE, Acting U.S.
Attorney General,
Respondents.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
April 8, 2026
TALWANI, D.J.
Petitioner Hamilton Tabares Areiza, a citizen of Colombia, entered the United States
without inspection in January 2022. See Pet. ¶¶ 3–4 [Doc. No. 1]. U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (“ICE”) agents “and/or other federal agents acting on ICE’s behalf” arrested
Petitioner on or about March 22, 2026. Id. ¶ 6. He is presently detained at the Plymouth County
Correctional Facility in Plymouth, Massachusetts. Id. ¶ 7.
On April 2, 2026, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [Doc. No. 1], in
which he seeks, inter alia, immediate release from detention or, “in the alternative[,]” an
individual bond hearing pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), and an order requiring that, should
Respondents release Petitioner from custody, Respondents do so
in Massachusetts[,] during normal business hours[,] in a well-populated area that is
within a quarter mile of public transportation and not more than 30 miles from
Case 1:26-cv-11563-IT Document 7 Filed 04/08/26 Page 1 of 4

2
Petitioner’s residence[,] with all personal documents . . . and belongings[,] without
conditions such as ankle monitors or tracking devices[,] with attire appropriate to
the weather conditions[,] and after having given at least six hours’ notice to
Petitioner’s counsel of the time and place of Petitioner’s release.
Id. at 18 ¶ 5–19 ¶ 7. Petitioner also seeks attorney’s fees and costs under the Equal Access to
Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412, and an order “requir[ing] that Respondents not retaliate against
Petitioner for the filing of this action and, upon his release, not re-detain Petitioner absent an
individualized showing of changed circumstances that would warrant detention under applicable
law.” Id. at 19 ¶¶ 8–9.
As the basis for relief, Petitioner asserts that he is a member of the certified class in
Guerrero Orellana v. Moniz, No. 25-cv-12664-PBS (D. Mass.) and is therefore entitled to a bond
hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). See Pet. ¶¶ 50–56 [Doc. No. 1]. Petitioner also argues that,
without the procedural protection of a bond hearing, Petitioner’s detention violates his
procedural and substantive due process rights guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment to the United
States Constitution. See id. ¶¶ 57–65.
In their abbreviated Response [Doc. No. 6], Respondents
submit that the legal issues presented in this Petition are similar to those recently
addressed by this Court in Doe v. Moniz[, 800 F. Supp. 3d 203 (D. Mass. 2025)];
Escobar v. Hyde, No. 25-cv-12620-IT, 2025 WL 2823324 (D. Mass. Oct. 3, 2025);
Da Silva v. Hyde, 25-cv-12638-IT (D. Mass. Oct. 7, 2025); Venancio v. Hyde, No.
25-cv-12616-IT (D. Mass. Oct. 9, 2025); and Caguana-Caguana v. Moniz, No. 25-
cv-13142-IT, 2025 WL 317043 (D. Mass. Nov. 13, 2025).
Id. at 1. Respondents thus acknowledge that, “[s]hould the Court follow its reasoning in Doe,
Escobar, Da Silva, Venancio, and Caguana–Caguana, 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.
Case 1:26-cv-11563-IT Document 7 Filed 04/08/26 Page 2 of 4

3
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].” Resp. 2 n.1 [Doc.
No. 6].
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, Dkt. No.
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 the court’s 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 Rodriguez v.
Wesling, No. 26-cv-11247-IT, 2026 WL788250, at *1 (D. Mass. Mar. 20, 2026); Arbe Vilchez
v. Moniz, No. 26-cv-10571-IT, 2026 WL 381828, at *2 (D. Mass. Feb. 11, 2026); Moura v.
Moniz, No. 25-cv-14011-IT, 2026 WL 177862, at *2 (D. Mass. Jan. 22, 2026).1
1 Insofar as Petitioner seeks an order “requir[ing] that Respondents not retaliate against Petitioner
for the filing of this action and, upon his release, not re-detain Petitioner absent an individualized
showing of changed circumstances that would warrant detention under applicable law[,]” Pet. 19
¶ 7 [Doc. No. 1], the court declines to grant such injunctive relief where “the possibility of
[Petitioner’s] future detention . . . is only hypothetical at the moment[.]” Andrade v. U.S. Dep’t
of Homeland Sec., No. 25-cv-40201-MRG, 2025 WL 3527159, at *3 (D. Mass. Dec. 9, 2025).
Case 1:26-cv-11563-IT Document 7 Filed 04/08/26 Page 3 of 4

4
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 April 15, 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 April 17, 2026.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
April 8, 2026 	/s/ Indira Talwani
United States District Judge
Case 1:26-cv-11563-IT Document 7 Filed 04/08/26 Page 4 of 4