Two of the men swept up in Monday’s ICE operation around New Bedford have asked a federal judge in Boston to let them out. Their lawyers could not find either of them in the government’s own detainee locator when they filed.
That detail is not a complaint about customer service. It is the reason these cases are filed as habeas petitions in a federal district court rather than handled in immigration court, and understanding why explains most of what is happening in Massachusetts this week.
Who filed, and what they are asking for
Alfredo Celestino Cahuec and Mateo Mejia Tix, both New Bedford residents and both natives and citizens of Guatemala, filed habeas corpus petitions in U.S. District Court in Boston. They are represented by Todd Pomerleau and Sara Bloom of Mass Deportation Defense, with attorneys affiliated with the Massachusetts Law Reform Institute.
Cahuec’s petition says he was arrested around 7 a.m. Monday and is held at the Burlington ICE Processing Facility. Mejia Tix is believed to be at the Plymouth County Correctional Facility or the Burlington field office. Cahuec entered the United States in or about 2022. Mejia Tix has been here since at least 2019 and was previously arrested by Border Patrol and released on an Order of Recognizance around January 2020.
They ask the court to order their immediate release or, in the alternative, to require immigration authorities to give them bond hearings and consider release on conditions.
Pomerleau told MassLive that roughly 30 people were taken in Monday and Tuesday, well above the dozen elected officials initially described, and that more petitions were expected. ICE declined to comment, saying the Department of Homeland Security “does not discuss ongoing or future operations.”
The legal fight is about which detention statute applies
This is the whole case, and it turns on a distinction most people have never heard of.
8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) is the ordinary detention provision for someone already in the country. Pending a removal decision, the Attorney General “may continue to detain the arrested alien” or “may release the alien on bond of at least $1,500 … or conditional parole.” Discretion, and a bond hearing.
8 U.S.C. § 1225 is the provision for people arriving at the border. Section 1225(a)(1) treats as an “applicant for admission” any person “present in the United States who has not been admitted or who arrives in the United States.” Section 1225(b)(2)(A) then provides that if an examining officer determines the person “is not clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted,” the person “shall be detained for a proceeding.” Mandatory. No bond.
Read § 1225(a)(1) again. It reaches a person “present in the United States who has not been admitted,” which on a literal reading includes someone who crossed without inspection years ago and has lived in New Bedford ever since. That reading converts a long-settled resident into an applicant for admission and moves him from the discretionary statute to the mandatory one.
That is what the petitions say is happening. Their lawyers argue ICE is treating both men as subject to mandatory detention because neither was previously lawfully admitted or paroled, even though neither has a criminal conviction of the kind that triggers mandatory detention under § 1226(c).
Matter of Yajure Hurtado and the conflict underneath it
The petitions identify the administrative decision driving this: a 2025 Board of Immigration Appeals ruling known as Matter of Yajure Hurtado, which held that certain people who entered without inspection can be held without a bond hearing.
The Board of Immigration Appeals is part of the Justice Department, not the judiciary. Its decisions bind immigration judges. They do not bind an Article III court.
The petitioners’ argument is that the BIA reading conflicts with more recent federal court decisions in Massachusetts and California holding that people arrested after establishing lives inside the country must receive individualized custody reviews and be considered for bond. If a district judge agrees, the remedy is an order that ICE provide a bond hearing under § 1226(a).
The government’s strongest card is Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281 (2018), where the Supreme Court held that §§ 1225(b) and 1226(c) contain no implicit requirement of periodic bond hearings. Jennings was a statutory ruling, and the Court expressly left constitutional due process questions for remand. That is the doorway these petitions go through.
Why this is habeas, and why it is in Boston
Two structural points explain the posture.
First, habeas under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is the vehicle because the claim is about the fact of custody rather than the merits of removal. A person cannot appeal a detention decision to an Article III court the way a criminal defendant appeals bail. Habeas is the route.
Second, the district matters. Under Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426 (2004), the immediate custodian rule generally requires a core habeas petition to be filed in the district of confinement. Burlington and Plymouth are both in Massachusetts, so the District of Massachusetts is the court.
Which is exactly why transfers matter so much in these cases. A detainee moved to Louisiana or Texas before a petition is filed may have to file there instead, in a different circuit with different law. Speed is not zeal. It is jurisdiction.
The locator problem is a legal problem
MassLive could not find either man in ICE’s Online Detainee Locator System on Wednesday morning. Neither could their own lawyers when the petitions were filed.
We wrote on Monday that the single most important thing for a family in the first hours is the A-number, because the locator is how anyone finds a detained person. This week supplies the reason. A petition has to name a respondent and allege where the person is held. Cahuec’s lawyers could state the Burlington facility. For Mejia Tix they had to plead in the alternative, naming two possible locations.
A system in which counsel must guess at the place of confinement in a filing that depends on the place of confinement is a system generating its own litigation.
What happens next
- An order to show cause. The usual first step is an order requiring the government to respond within a short period, sometimes days.
- A request to bar transfer. Counsel in these cases frequently seek an order preventing removal from the district while the petition is pending, which preserves jurisdiction.
- More petitions. Pomerleau said additional filings were expected, and reporting indicates roughly 20 attorneys are on standby with the Massachusetts Law Reform Institute.
- The ruling that travels. If a judge holds that a long-resident person arrested in the interior falls under § 1226(a) rather than § 1225(b), that reasoning reaches everyone else detained in this operation.
What this does not decide
None of it is about whether these men can stay in the country. A habeas petition challenging detention does not adjudicate removability, asylum, cancellation of removal or any other form of relief. A petitioner can win release and still be ordered removed months later, and can lose the petition and still ultimately be allowed to stay.
It decides one thing: whether a person waits for that answer at home or in a county jail.
What is a habeas corpus petition in an immigration case?
A civil petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in federal district court challenging the lawfulness of detention. It addresses custody, not whether a person may remain in the United States.
Why does the choice between § 1226 and § 1225 matter?
Under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), detention is discretionary and release on bond of at least $1,500 or conditional parole is available. Under § 1225(b)(2)(A), a person treated as an applicant for admission “shall be detained,” with no bond hearing.
Can someone who entered years ago be an “applicant for admission”?
Section 1225(a)(1) defines the term to include a person “present in the United States who has not been admitted.” Whether that reaches someone who has lived here for years is the question these petitions raise.
What is Matter of Yajure Hurtado?
A 2025 Board of Immigration Appeals decision holding that certain people who entered without inspection may be held without a bond hearing. The BIA is part of the Justice Department and its decisions do not bind federal courts.
Why file in Boston?
Under Rumsfeld v. Padilla, a core habeas petition is generally filed in the district of confinement against the immediate custodian. Both men are believed held in Massachusetts.
Why could their lawyers not find them?
Neither man appeared in ICE’s Online Detainee Locator System when the petitions were filed. One petition had to plead two possible places of confinement in the alternative.
The petitions, the petitioners’ names, residence and immigration histories, the facilities, counsel, the approximately 30 arrests, the locator system failure, the arguments about mandatory detention and Matter of Yajure Hurtado, and ICE’s statement from MassLive, September 23, 2026, reporting on habeas petitions it obtained. Statutory text of 8 U.S.C. § 1225(a)(1), § 1225(b)(2)(A) read at law.cornell.edu and 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) at govinfo.gov. Citations verified: Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281 (2018); Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426 (2004). We have not read the petitions or the docket, and Matter of Yajure Hurtado is described as the petitions characterize it. The allegations in the petitions are unproven and the government has not responded. General information about federal law, not legal advice.