Rafael v. Plymouth County Correctional et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
RAUL ANTONIO TADEO RAFAEL,
Petitioner,
*
*
*
*
Civil Action No. 1:25-cv-13197-IT
v. *
*
PLYMOUTH COUNTY CORRECTIONAL
FACILITY and U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
HOMELAND SECURITY,
Respondents.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
November 17, 2025
TALWANI, D.J.
Petitioner Raul Antonio Tadeo Rafael,1 a native of El Salvador, has resided in the United
States for eighteen years. Pet. ¶ 13 [Doc. No. 1]; Pet., Ex. B [Doc. No. 1-1]. He is currently
detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) at the Plymouth County
Correctional Institution in Plymouth, Massachusetts.2 Pet. ¶ 2 [Doc. No. 1]; Resp’ts’ Abbrev.
Resp. 2 [Doc. No. 10].
On October 16, 2025, an immigration judge denied Petitioner’s request for a custody
redetermination pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1236 upon concluding that Petitioner is “subject to
1 Petitioner is also referred to as “Raul Antonio Tadeo-Rafeal.” See, e.g., Pet. ¶ 1 [Doc. No. 1];
id., Ex. A [Doc. No. 1-1].
2 Neither Petitioner nor Respondent explicitly state that Petitioner entered the United States
without inspection or indicate when such entry may have occurred, nor have they provided detail
as to the circumstances of Petitioner’s apparent arrest by U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (“ICE”).
Case 1:25-cv-13197-IT Document 12 Filed 11/17/25 Page 1 of 3

2
mandatory detention.” Pet., Ex. A [Doc. No. 1-1]. Now pending before the court is Petitioner’s
pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [Doc. No. 1], in which he contends that his detention
violates both statute and the Constitution. Id. ¶ 13. Although Petitioner does not say so explicitly,
the substance of his Petition indicates that Petitioner’s request for relief is premised on the
assertion that he is detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226. See id. ¶ 13 (“Both INA § 236(a) and 8
C.F.R. § 1236.1(d) explicitly delegate authority to Immigration Judges to ‘release the alien, and
determine the amount of bond, if any.’ By refusing to exercise jurisdiction, the BIA’s ruling is in
direct contradiction to the statutes and violates basic principles of statutory interpretation.”).
Petitioner asks this court to “order the Immigration Court to conduct a bond hearing.” Copy of
Pet. ¶ 15 [Doc. No. 11].
Respondents assert that Petitioner is lawfully detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2),
as Petitioner “fits the statutory definition of an applicant for admission as he is present in the
United States and he has not been admitted” and is therefore subject to mandatory detention.
Resp’ts’ Abbrev. Resp. 2-3 [Doc. No. 10]. Respondents also “acknowledge this Court’s prior
decision in [Doe v. Moniz, __ F. Supp. 3d ___, 2025 WL 2576819 (D. Mass. Sept. 5, 2025)]
likely guides the result in this case if the Court adheres to its reasoning.” Id. at 1.
Nothing in the record indicates that Petitioner is detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1225 rather
than 8 U.S.C. § 1226. The court finds that the reasoning in Doe remains correct and is again
unpersuaded by the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision in Matter of Yujare Hurtado, 29
I&N Dec. 216 (B.I.A. 2025) on which Respondents rely. See Elias Escobar v. Hyde, 2025 WL
282334, at *3 (D. Mass. Oct. 3, 2025) (collecting cases reaching the same conclusion as to
Matter of Yajure Hurtado). See also Cordero v. Hyde, 2025 WL 3043415, at *5 (D. Mass. Oct.
31, 2025) (Matter of Yajure Hurtado is “unpersuasive and does not change the analysis”).
Case 1:25-cv-13197-IT Document 12 Filed 11/17/25 Page 2 of 3

3
Accordingly, the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [Doc. No. 1] is GRANTED as
follows. No later than November 24, 2025, 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 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 shall
set forth the reasons for the continued detention.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
November 17, 2025 /s/ Indira Talwani
United States District Judge
Case 1:25-cv-13197-IT Document 12 Filed 11/17/25 Page 3 of 3