District of Massachusetts • 1:25-cv-12749

#1

Sep 24, 2025

PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) Filing fee: $ 5, receipt number AMADC-11259004 Fee status: Filing Fee paid., filed by Elmer Almicar Lopez Ramirez. (Attachments: # 1 Category Form, # 2 Civil Cover Sheet)(Dill, Nicole) (Entered: 09/24/2025)

#2

Sep 24, 2025

Judge Indira Talwani: EMERGENCY ORDER CONCERNING STAY OF TRANSFER OR REMOVAL. ORDER entered. (JPM) (Entered: 09/24/2025)

#3

Sep 25, 2025

ELECTRONIC NOTICE of Case Assignment. Chief District Judge Denise J. Casper assigned to case. If the trial Judge issues an Order of Reference of any matter in this case to a Magistrate Judge, the matter will be transmitted to Magistrate Judge M. Page Kelley. (NMC) (Entered: 09/25/2025)

#4

Sep 25, 2025

General Order 19-02, dated June 1, 2019 regarding Public Access to Immigration Cases Restricted by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(c). (NMC) (Entered: 09/25/2025)

#5

Sep 25, 2025

Service Order-2241 Petition

Sep 25, 2025

Notice of Case Assignment

#6

Sep 30, 2025

Notice of Appearance

#7

Oct 08, 2025

Notice of Appearance

#8

Oct 08, 2025

Amended Complaint

#9

Oct 09, 2025

Extension of Time

#10

Oct 17, 2025

Answer/Response to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus - 2241

#11

Oct 20, 2025

Chief District Judge Denise J. Casper: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered granting nunc pro tunc 9 Motion for Extension of Time to 10/17/2025 to respond to Petitioner's Amended Petition for Habeas by Pamela Bondi, Patricia Hyde, Todd Lyons, Antone Moniz, Kristi Noem, Donald J Trump. (LMH) (Entered: 10/20/2025)

Oct 20, 2025

Order on Motion for Extension of Time

#12

Oct 21, 2025

Exhibit

#13

Nov 06, 2025

Chief District Judge Denise J. Casper: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. Having considered the amended petition for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (the "Amended Petition") filed by Petitioner Elmer Almicar Lopez Ramirez ("Petitioner"), D. 8, and Respondents' opposition to same, D. 10; D. 12-1, the Court ALLOWS the Petition insofar as it sought a bond hearing/individualized custody redetermination before an immigration judge under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), which the Court ORDERS within seven (7) days of this Order. Respondents are also ENJOINED from denying Petitioner bond on the basis that he is detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). The Court further ORDERS Respondents to file a status report within ten (10) days of this Order stating whether Petitioner has been granted bond, and, if his request for bond was denied, the reasons for that denial. Factual Background. Petitioner is a noncitizen from Guatemala who resides in Massachusetts. D. 8 ¶¶ 1-2. Petitioner entered the United States without inspection, admission or parole on an unknown date and at an unknown place. D. 12-1 ¶ 6. On or about September 24, 2025, U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") arrested Petitioner and took him into custody. D. 8 ¶¶ 3-5; D. 12-1 ¶ 7. In the Amended Petition, D. 8, Petitioner alleges, among other things, that his detention violates 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and its associated regulations, because Petitioner is being deprived of a bond hearing, D. 8 ¶¶ 23-26; (2) his rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, because Petitioner is entitled to a bond hearing, id. ¶¶ 27-29, and an individualized detention hearing, id. ¶¶ 23-30; and (3) violates the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"), id. ¶¶ 25-27.On or about October 1, 2025, ICE served Petitioner with a Notice to Appear ("NTA") charging him with inadmissibility under 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(6)(A)(i)(I) (providing that "[a]n alien present in the United States without being admitted or paroled,..., is inadmissible") and 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) (providing that "any immigrant at the time of application for admission[] who is not in possession of a valid... entry document required by this chapter, and a valid unexpired passport, or other suitable travel document... is inadmissible"). D. 12-1 ¶ 12. On or about October 14, 2025, Petitioner appeared before the Chelmsford Immigration Court, where he was given a continuance to seek representation and his removal proceedings remain pending. Id. ¶¶ 14-15.Discussion. Petitioner brings this Amended Petition to challenge his detention in this district and seeks relief from same. D. 8 at 8. Accordingly, this Court has jurisdiction over the Amended Petition as it concerns relief that Petitioner seeks challenging his continued detention. Kong v. United States, 62 F. 4th 608, 614 (1st Cir. 2023) (noting that "we have held that district courts retain jurisdiction over challenges to the legality of detention in the immigration context").The Court agrees with Petitioner that his custody is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) (which allows for discretionary determinations of custody before an immigration judge) and not 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2), as Respondents contend (which provides for mandatory detention for "applicants for admission"); see Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281, 289 (2018) (discussing the distinction). In the instant case, the Petitioner was already residing in Massachusetts when ICE arrested him "at a place which was not a port of entry or another place designated by the Attorney General." D. 12-1 ¶ 6; see D. 8 ¶¶ 1, 3. Although Respondents state that Petitioner is detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1225, D. 12-1 ¶ 7, the Court does not credit this assertion because it is a legal conclusion rather than a fact. Respondents have not indicated that Petitioner was "arriving" in the United States at the time of his arrest and nothing in the record indicates that Petitioner was detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1225 rather than 8 U.S.C. § 1226. Finally, there is no indication that Petitioner has been convicted of a crime or has engaged in any unlawful activity requiring mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C § 1226(c). See 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c)(1)(A)-(D).As Respondents acknowledge in their opposition, D. 10 at 9 n.7, "[o]ther sessions of this court, as well as other courts across the country, have determined that 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), and not 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2), appl[ies] to aliens arrested and detained within the United States, even if such alien meets the definition of an applicant for admission as an alien present in the United States who has not been admitted." The Court agrees with these courts that the detention of noncitizens such as Petitioner, who are arrested and detained within the United States, is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and that Petitioner is thus entitled to a bond hearing and individualized determination of detention. See Guerrero Orellana v. Moniz, No. 25-cv-12664-PBS, 2025 WL 2809996, at *6-8 (D. Mass. Oct. 3, 2025) (noting that "construing § 1226 rather than § 1225(b)(2)(A) to apply to noncitizens while residing in the United States aligns with longstanding agency practice" and that "the Court’s holding does not turn on the existence of a warrant or the warrant's language [] because § 1225(b)(2)(A)'s plain terms do not encompass noncitizens like [Petitioner] who entered the United States unlawfully and are apprehended while residing in the country") and cases cited; Order, de Los Reyes Gonzalez v. McDonald, No. 25-cv-12644-RGS (D. Mass. Oct. 9, 2025), D. 10 (agreeing with analysis in Guerrero Orellana that "when a non-criminal noncitizen residing within the United States is detained, his detention is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) rather than 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)"); Order, Orellana-Serrano v. Hyde, No. 25-cv-12646-MJJ (D. Mass. Oct. 10, 2025), D. 18; Order, Amaya Sanchez v. Moniz, No. 25-cv-12806-AK (D. Mass. Oct. 8, 2025), D. 10; Order, Colombo v. Moniz, No. 25-cv-12733-MJJ (D. Mass. Sept. 30, 2025), D. 8; see also Da Silva v. Bondi, et al., No. 25-cv-12672, 2025 WL 2969163, at *2 (D. Mass. Oct. 21, 2025) and cases cited.For the foregoing reasons, the Court concludes that Petitioner's custody is covered by 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) (which allows for discretionary determination of custody before an immigration judge), not § 1225(b)(2) as the government contends. Accordingly, the Court ALLOWS Petitioner's Amended Petition, D. 8, insofar as it sought a bond hearing/individualized custody redetermination before an immigration judge under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), which the Court ORDERS within seven (7) days of this Order. Respondents are also ENJOINED from denying Petitioner bond on the basis that he is detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). The Court further ORDERS Respondents to file a status report within ten (10) days of this Order stating whether Petitioner has been granted bond, and, if his request for bond was denied, the reasons for that denial.(LMH) (Entered: 11/06/2025)

Nov 06, 2025

Order