Arbe Vilchez v. Moniz et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
VICTOR GABRIEL ARBE VILCHEZ,
Petitioner,
*
*
*
*
Civil Action No. 1:26-cv-10571-IT
v. 	*
*
ANTONE MONIZ, Superintendent, Plymouth
County Correctional Facility; DAVID
WESTLING, Field Office Director; TODD
M. LYONS, Acting Director, U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement;
KRISTI NOEM, Secretary, U.S. Department
of Homeland Security; PAMELA BONDI,
Attorney General of the United States; and
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY,
Respondents.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
February 11, 2026
TALWANI, D.J.
Petitioner Victor Gabriel Arbe Vilchez, a native and citizen of Peru, entered the United
States without inspection in April 2023. Pet. ¶¶ 2, 6, 20 [Doc. No. 1]. Petitioner asserts that he
“is currently seeking asylum and related relief before the Executive Office of Immigration
Review” on the basis of his “persecution on account of political opinion and membership in
particular social groups related to his service as a police officer and [Peru]’s treatment of
neurodivergent individuals and their families.”1 Id. ¶ 2.
1 Petitioner and his spouse have two children, one of whom “is autistic.” Id.
Case 1:26-cv-10571-IT Document 8 Filed 02/11/26 Page 1 of 4

2
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) detained Petitioner in Burlington,
Massachusetts, on February 4, 2026. Id. ¶ 20. Petitioner states that, “[p]rior to apprehending
[him], the [U.S. Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”)] had placed him in removal
proceedings pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1229a.” Id. ¶ 7. He is presently housed at the Plymouth
County Correctional Center in Plymouth, Massachusetts, and reports that ICE has “not set bond,
stating that the current policy required that he be detained.” Id. ¶ 20.
In his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [Doc. No. 1], Petitioner seeks release from
custody or, in the alternative, a custody redetermination hearing (a “bond hearing”) pursuant to 8
U.S.C. § 1226(a). Id. at ECF 9. As grounds therefor, Petitioner argues that he is a member of the
“the Bond Eligible Class certified in Maldonado Bautista v. Santacruz, No. 5:25-CV-01873-SSS-
BFM (C.D. Cal.)” 2 and “the certified class in Guerrero Orellana v. Moniz, No. 25-cv-12664-
PBS (D. Mass.)[.]” Id. ¶ 1; see id. ¶¶ 26–31. As such, Petitioner states that he is entitled to
“consideration for release on bond and/or conditions under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a).” Id. ¶ 27. He
further asserts that
[i]mmigration judges have informed class members in bond hearings that they have
been instructed by ‘leadership’ that the declaratory judgments in Maldonado
Bautista and Guerrero Orellana are not controlling, even with respect to class
members, and that instead IJs remain bound to follow the agency’s prior decision
in Matter of Yajure Hurtado, 29 I. & N. Dec. 216 (BIA 2025).
Id. ¶ 10.
2 The court understands Petitioner to be referencing the class certification, grant of partial
summary judgment, and final judgment entered in Bautista v. Santacruz, --- F. Supp. 3d ----, No.
5:25-cv-01873-SSS-BFM, 2025 WL 3713987 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2025), judgment entered sub
nom. Maldonado Bautista v. Noem, No. 5:25-cv-01873-SSS-BFM, 2025 WL 3678485 (C.D.
Cal. Dec. 18, 2025).
Case 1:26-cv-10571-IT Document 8 Filed 02/11/26 Page 2 of 4

3
In their Response [Doc. No. 7],3 Respondents “submit that the legal issues presented in
this Petition are similar to those recently addressed by this Court in Doe v. Moniz[, No. 25-cv-
12094-IT, 2025 WL 2576819 (D. Mass. Sept. 5, 2025)].” Id. at 1 (footnote omitted).
Respondents therefore acknowledge that “[s]hould the Court follow its reasoning in Doe, it
would reach the same result here.” Id.
The court finds that the reasoning in Doe remains correct. As to Petitioner’s assertion that
he is a member of the aforementioned classes certified by a judge in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California and by a judge in this District, respectively, the court takes
judicial notice of both cases. Respondents do not contest Petitioner’s membership in either class,
and the facts alleged by Petitioner indicate that he falls within both classes’ purview. See Pet. ¶ 6
[Doc. No. 1] (asserting, inter alia, that Petitioner was not apprehended upon entering the United
States, has not been paroled into the country under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5)(A), is not subject to an
expedited removal order under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1), “is not currently in proceedings before an
immigration judge due to having been found to have a credible fear of persecution under 8
U.S.C. § 1225(b)(12)(B)(ii)[,]” and is not detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) or 8 U.S.C.
§ 1231); Guerrero Orellana v. Moniz, --- F. Supp. 3d ----, No. 25-cv-12664-PBS, 2025 WL
3687757, at *10 (D. Mass. Dec. 19, 2025) (defining a class that is “not subject to detention under
8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)”); Bautista, 2025 WL 3713987, at *32 (setting forth the definition of the
“Bond Eligible Class”).
In the first case, a final judgment granting a declaratory judgment has entered, under
which class members “are detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), are not subject to mandatory
detention under § 1225(b)(2), and are entitled to consideration for release on bond by
3 The court grants Respondents’ request that the court treat the Response [Doc. No. 7] as timely
filed. See id. at 1 n.1.
Case 1:26-cv-10571-IT Document 8 Filed 02/11/26 Page 3 of 4

4
immigration officers and, if not released, a custody redetermination hearing before an
immigration judge.” Maldonado Bautista, 2025 WL 3678485, at *1. In the second case, partial
final judgment has entered, declaring that class members “are subject to detention under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1226(a),” rather than under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2), and are therefore entitled to “access to
consideration for release on bond and/or conditions before immigration officers and Immigration
Judges.” Guerrero Orellana, 2025 WL 3687757, at *10. “The declarations issued by these courts
are binding on Respondents.” Moura v. Moniz, No. 1:25-cv-14011-IT, 2026 WL 177862, at *2
(D. Mass. Jan. 22, 2026).
Accordingly, in light of this court’s decision in Doe, and consistent with the declaratory
judgments ordered by two other courts, the Petition [Doc. No. 1] is GRANTED as follows: No
later than February 18, 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 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. Respondents shall submit a status report on this matter no
later than February 23, 2026.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
February 11, 2026 	/s/ Indira Talwani
United States District Judge
Case 1:26-cv-10571-IT Document 8 Filed 02/11/26 Page 4 of 4