Brum Texeira v. Noem et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
GENAIR RIBEIRO BRUM TEXEIRA,
Petitioner,
*
*
*
*
*
Civil Action No. 1:25-cv-13460-IT
v. 	*
*
KRISTI NOEM, Secretary of the U.S.
Department of Homeland Security; TODD
LYONS, Acting Director of U.S. Immigration
and Customs Enforcement; DAVID
WESLING, Acting Field Office Director,
Immigration and Customs Enforcement,
Boston; JOSEPH D. MCDONALD, Sheriff of
Plymouth County, Massachusetts; and
ANTONE MONIZ, Superintendent, Plymouth
County Correctional Facility,
Respondents.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
November 26, 2025
TALWANI, D.J.
Petitioner Genair Ribeiro Brum Texeira alleges in his Petition [Doc. No. 1] that on
November 19, 2025, he was detained by ICE while leaving his home for work. Pet. ¶ 16.
Petitioner alleges, and Respondents concur, that Petitioner is currently being held in custody at
the Plymouth County Correctional Facility in Plymouth, Massachusetts. Id. ¶ 6 [Doc. No. 1];
Respondents’ Abbrev. Resp. 2 [Doc. No. 6].
On November 19, 2025, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [Doc. No.
1] with this court. Petitioner contends that he “expects to be denied bond at a bond
redetermination hearing before an Immigration Judge, should he seek such relief,” because he
Case 1:25-cv-13460-IT Document 7 Filed 11/26/25 Page 1 of 3

2
expects the Immigration Court will conclude that Petitioner “is subject to mandatory detention as
an ‘applicant for admission’ subject to expedited removal pursuant to 8 USC § 1225(b)(2).” Pet.
¶ 2 [Doc. No. 1].1 Petitioner argues that he “clear[ly] qualifi[es] for consideration of bond
pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226[,]” id. ¶ 17, and thus requests that this court direct the Executive
Office of Immigration Review “to expeditiously provide an appropriate bond hearing[.]” Id. at
p. 8.
In response, Respondents assert that Petitioner’s detention is authorized pursuant to 8
U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A). Respondents’ Abbrev. Resp. 2 [Doc. No. 6]. Yet, Respondents also
concede that this court in Doe v. Moniz, __ F. Supp. 3d __, 2025 WL 2576819 (D. Mass. Sept. 5,
2025), Elias Escobar v. Hyde, 2025 WL 2823324 (D. Mass. Oct. 3, 2025), Da Silva v. Hyde, No.
25-cv-12638-IT (D. Mass. Oct. 7, 2025), and Venancio v. Hyde, No. 25-cv-12616-IT (D. Mass.
Oct. 9, 2025) has held that “8 U.S.C. § 1226(a)—not § 1225(b)—governed the petitioner’s
detention.” Id. at 2–3. Accordingly, Respondents recognize that “[s]hould the Court apply the
reasoning of those cases here, it would reach the same result.” Id. at 3.
Nothing in the record indicates that Petitioner was detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1225 rather
than 8 U.S.C. § 1226. The court finds the reasoning in Doe remains correct. The Board of
Immigration Appeals’ decision in Matter of Yajure Hurtado, 29 I&N Dec. 216 (BIA 2025), is
unpersuasive and does not change the analysis. See Elias Escobar, 2025 WL 2823324, at *3
(citing cases reaching the same conclusion).
1 It is not clear to the court based on the Petition [Doc. No. 1] whether Petitioner has already
received a bond hearing during which he was impermissibly denied bond, or whether a bond
hearing has not yet been held and Petitioner expects to be denied bond pursuant to 8 U.S.C.
§ 1225. See Pet. ¶ 33 (“The Immigration Judge did not weigh these factors. As a result, her
dismissal of bond is an abuse of discretion and exceeds her statutory authority, as interpreted by
EOIR.”); but see id. ¶ 2 (noting “Petitioner expects to be denied bond at a bond redetermination
hearing before an Immigration Judge”). In either event, for the reasons stated below, the court
finds that Petitioner is entitled to a bond hearing pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a).
Case 1:25-cv-13460-IT Document 7 Filed 11/26/25 Page 2 of 3

3
The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [Doc. No. 1] is therefore GRANTED as follows.
No later than December 3, 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, 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 26, 2025 	/s/ Indira Talwani
United States District Judge
Case 1:25-cv-13460-IT Document 7 Filed 11/26/25 Page 3 of 3