Benitez Valerio v. Moniz et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
_______________________________________
)
BRIAM BENITEZ VALERIO, 	)
)
Petitioner, 	)
) 	Civil Action No.
v. 	) 	26-10866-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.1 Petitioner Briam Benitez Valerio is a Dominican Republic
national who illegally entered the United States in November 2021.
In February 2026, petitioner was arrested and taken into ICE custody, apparently
pursuant to the mandatory detention provision of 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b). He contends that his
warrantless arrest violates his Fourth Amendment rights and is contrary to statute, and that his
1 The petition names Antone Moniz, Superintendent, Plymouth County Correctional Facility; Patricia
Hyde, New England Field Office Director, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Todd Lyons, Acting
Director, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Pamela Bondi, Attorney General of the United States; and
Kristi Noem, U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security, as respondents. The Court notes that Moniz, as “the person who
has custody over [the petitioner],” is the only possible 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.”). The Court will therefore dismiss the claims against the other respondents.
Case 1:26-cv-10866-FDS Document 7 Filed 03/02/26 Page 1 of 4

2
continued detention without an individualized bond hearing violates his Fifth Amendment due-
process rights 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.
I. 	Background
Briam Benitez Valerio, a Dominican Republic national, entered the United States in
November 2021 by crossing the southern border without inspection. (Dkt. No. 1 ¶¶ 1, 31). He
has been living in the United States since. (Id. ¶ 1). 	ICE took him into custody at some point
during the week of February 8, 2026. (Id. ¶ 2). He is currently detained at Plymouth County
Correctional Facility in Plymouth, Massachusetts. (Id. ¶ 7).
On February 13, 2026, Benitez Valerio filed, through counsel, a petition for writ of
habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
On February 17, 2026, the Court ordered that he not be moved outside this District
without prior notice until further order of the Court. (Dkt. No. 4, at 2-3).
On February 23, 2026, respondents answered the petition. (Dkt. No. 5). Respondents
conceded that “legal issues presented in the Petition are similar to those recently addressed by
this Court in Dume Rivera et al. v. Moniz, 2025 WL 3198419 (D. Mass. Oct. 16, 2025),” and that
“[s]hould the Court follow its reasoning in Dume Rivera, it would reach the same result here.”
(Id. at 1).
Case 1:26-cv-10866-FDS Document 7 Filed 03/02/26 Page 2 of 4

3
II. 	Analysis
For the reasons discussed in the Court’s decision in Dume Rivera, and those of many
other courts across the country, 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),
noncitizens who initially entered the United States without inspection 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.
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
Case 1:26-cv-10866-FDS Document 7 Filed 03/02/26 Page 3 of 4

4
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. Accordingly, at this stage, the Court will not reach petitioner’s claims concerning his
warrantless arrest.
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. Respondent Antone Moniz is 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 9, 2026. The claims
against respondents Patricia Hyde, Todd Lyons, Pamela Bondi, and Kristi Noem are
DISMISSED.
So Ordered.
/s/ F. Dennis Saylor IV
F. Dennis Saylor IV
Dated: March 2, 2026 	United States District Judge
Case 1:26-cv-10866-FDS Document 7 Filed 03/02/26 Page 4 of 4