Hernandez Martinez v. Hyde et al

United 	States 	District Court
District of Massachusetts
)
Mario Alexis 	Hernandez Martinez,)
)
Petitioner, 	)
)
v. 	)
)
Civil Action No.
25-13852-NMG
Patricia Hyde 	et 	al., 	)
)
Respondents. 	)
)
-------------------
MEMORANDUM 	& ORDER
GORTON, 	J.
This 	case 	arises 	from 	the 	petition 	for 	writ 	of 	habeas
corpus 	(Docket 	No . 	1) 	of 	petitioner 	Mario 	Alexis 	Hernandez
Martinez 	("Hernandez 	Martinez " 	or 	" petitioner " ). 	He 	contends
that 	he 	is 	currently 	being 	detained 	unlawfully 	by 	Patricia 	Hyde
and 	other 	named 	respondents 	(collectively , 	" respondents " ).
Because 	petitioner 	is 	subject 	to 	a 	final 	remova l 	o r de r, 	his
continued 	detention 	is 	lawful 	and 	his 	petition 	will 	be 	den i ed .
I. 	Background
Petitioner 	is 	19 	years 	old 	and 	a 	citizen 	of 	El 	Salvador .
He 	entered 	the 	country 	without 	inspection 	in 	May , 	2016 . 	In
July , 	20 1 9 , 	an 	immigration 	judge 	denied 	petitioner ' s 	application
for 	asylum 	and 	withholding 	of 	removal 	and 	ordered 	him 	removed 	to
El 	Salvador . 	The 	Board 	of 	Immigration 	Appeals 	(" BIA " ) 	upheld
that 	decision 	in 	July , 	2023 .
- 1-
Case 1:25-cv-13852-NMG Document 9 Filed 12/23/25 Page 1 of 5

On 	December 	12 , 	2025, 	petitioner 	was 	arrested 	by
Immigration 	and 	Customs 	Enforcement 	- 	Enforcement 	a n d 	Remova l
Operations 	(" ICE - ERO " ) . 	He 	fi l ed 	the 	pend i ng 	petitio n 	for 	writ
of 	habeas 	corpus 	on 	December 	16 , 	2025 , 	and 	t h e 	gover n ment 	timely
responded.
II. 	Petition 	for Writ 	of 	Habeas 	Corpus
A. Legal 	Standard
A petition 	for 	writ 	of 	habeas 	corpus 	pursuant 	to 	28 	U.S.C.
§2241 	permits 	a 	prisoner 	to 	challenge 	the 	administration 	of 	his
detention 	rather 	than 	its 	validity . 	Dinkins 	v . 	Boncher , 	No . 	21 -
CV - 11847-AK , 	2022 	WL 	3021108 , 	at 	*2 	(D. 	Mass . 	July 	29 , 	2022) .
The 	burden 	is 	on 	petitioner 	to 	s h ow 	t hat 	h i s 	custody 	v i ola t es
the 	Constitution 	or 	laws 	of 	the 	United 	States . 	E spinoza 	v .
Sabol , 	558 	F . 3d 	83 , 	89 	(1st 	Cir . 	2009).
B. Application
i. 	Statutory Requirements
Petitioner 	claims 	that 	he 	i s 	detained 	pursuant 	to 	8 	U.S . C .
§1226(a) 	and 	is 	therefore 	eligible 	for 	a 	bond 	hearing . 	He
contends 	that 	§1225(b) (2) , 	which 	mandates 	custody 	of 	aliens
detained 	at 	the 	border , 	does 	not 	apply 	to 	him .
In 	this 	case , 	petitioner 	is 	mistaken . 	Both 	§1225 	and 	§1226
are 	statutory 	provisions 	relating 	to 	the 	detention 	of 	aliens
pending 	removal 	proceedings , 	not 	those , 	such 	as 	Hernandez
Martinez , 	who 	have 	already 	been 	ordered 	removed . 	Petitioner 	is ,
- 2 -
Case 1:25-cv-13852-NMG Document 9 Filed 12/23/25 Page 2 of 5

instead , 	subject 	to 	the 	provisions 	§1231 , 	which 	provides 	for 	the
custody 	of 	aliens 	with 	final 	orders 	of 	removal . 	Tha t 	statute
requires 	that 	an 	alien 	be 	removed 	within 	90 	days 	o f 	their
removal 	order 	becoming 	final 	(" the 	removal 	per i od " ) , 	d u ring
which 	time 	their 	detention 	is 	mandatory . 	An 	alien 	found 	to 	be
inadmissible 	under 	§1182 	may 	be 	detained 	beyond 	the 	removal
period 	for 	a 	reasonable 	amount 	of 	time , 	§1231(a) (6), 	but
presumably 	no 	longer 	than 	six 	months . 	Zadvydas 	v . 	Davis , 	533
U. S . 	678, 	701 	(2001).
Under 	the 	prescribed 	framework , 	petitioner ' s 	detent i on 	is
lawful . 	It 	is 	unclear 	from 	the 	record 	why 	or 	how 	petitioner 	was
released 	at 	the 	conclusion 	of 	h i s 	r emoval 	proceedings , 	or 	i f 	he
was 	ever 	in 	custody . 	What 	is 	clear , 	however , 	is 	that 	petitioner
has 	been 	subject 	to 	a 	final 	removal 	order 	since 	at 	least 	July ,
2023. 	The 	government 	concedes 	that 	his 	removal 	period 	has 	long
since 	lapsed 	but 	that , 	because 	he 	is 	inadmissible 	under
§1182 (a) (6) (A) (i) 	as 	having 	been 	neither 	admitted 	nor 	paroled ,
he 	may 	nonetheless 	be 	detained 	under 	§1231(a) (6) . 	The 	Court
agrees 	and 	finds 	petitioner ' s 	detention 	lawful 	under 	these
provisions.
ii. 	Constitutional 	Challenge
Petitioner 	claims 	that 	his 	detention 	violates 	his 	right 	to
due 	process 	under 	the 	Fifth 	Amendment 	of 	the 	United 	States
Constitution . 	His 	argument 	in 	s u pport 	of 	that 	assertion 	is , 	in
- 3 -
Case 1:25-cv-13852-NMG Document 9 Filed 12/23/25 Page 3 of 5

essence , 	that 	the 	Due 	Process 	Clause 	applies 	to 	all 	people ,
including 	aliens , 	physically 	present 	within 	the 	United 	States .
While 	petitioner 	is 	correct 	that 	he 	is 	to 	be 	afforded 	due
process , 	he 	is 	incorrect 	that 	his 	current 	detention 	contravenes
that 	right . 	As 	the 	United 	States 	Supreme 	Court 	made 	clear 	in
Zadvydas , 	detention 	under 	§1231(a) (6) 	is 	presumed 	to 	be
constitutionally 	valid 	for 	a 	period 	of 	up 	to 	six 	months. 	533
U.S . 	at 	701. 	Petitioner 	has 	been 	detained 	for 	less 	than 	two
weeks . 	Such 	relatively 	brief 	detention 	does 	not 	violate 	his
right 	to 	due 	process 	under 	the 	United 	States 	Constitution .
iii. 	Regulatory 	Challenges
Finally , 	Hernandez 	Martinez 	alleges 	that 	his 	continued
detention 	without 	a 	bond 	hearing 	violates 	bond 	regulations 	found
at 	8 	C. F . R. 	§§236.1 , 	1236 . 1 	and 	1003 . 19. 	Again , 	he 	is 	detained
pursuant 	to 	§1231(a) (6) , 	which 	does 	not 	afford 	him 	the 	right 	to
a 	bond 	hearing 	similar 	to 	that 	of 	§1226(a) . 	Johnson 	v . 	Arteaga -
Martinez , 	596 	U. S. 	573 , 	584 	(2022) . 	His 	custody 	does 	not
th e refore 	implica t e , 	let 	alone 	violate , 	any 	such 	regulations .
,
- 4-
Case 1:25-cv-13852-NMG Document 9 Filed 12/23/25 Page 4 of 5

ORDER
For 	the 	aforementioned 	reasons , 	the 	petition 	for 	writ 	of
habeas 	corpus 	(Docket 	No . 	1) 	of 	Hernandez 	Martinez 	is 	DENIED .
So 	ordered .
~~~NathanielM.Gorfo n
Senior 	United 	States 	District 	Judge
Dated : 	December 23 , 	2 02 5
-5 -
Case 1:25-cv-13852-NMG Document 9 Filed 12/23/25 Page 5 of 5