Pacheco Guaman v. Nessinger et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
MANUEL IGNACIO PACHECO
GUAMAN,
Petitioner,
v.
MICHAEL NESSINGER,
Warden of
the Donald W. Wyatt Detention
Facility; DAVID T. WESLING,1
Field
Office Director; MICHAEL KROL,
HSI
New England Special Agent in Charge;
TODD LYONS,
Acting Director for
U.S. I.C.E.; MARKWAYNE MULLIN,
Secretary of Homeland Security;
TODD BLANCHE,
Acting Attorney
General of the United States; and
DONALD J. TRUMP,
President of the
United States,
Respondents.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 26-cv-292-JJM-AEM
ORDER
I. 	DISCUSSION
Manuel Ignacio Pacheco Guaman has filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241, arguing that his arrest and continued detention by Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (“ICE”) is unlawful, and that he must be released and given a bond
hearing before an immigration judge (“IJ”) pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). ECF No. 1.
1 Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d), David T. Wesling has been substituted for
Patricia Hyde as Field Office Director of Enforcement and Removal Operations,
Boston Field Office in this action.
Case 1:26-cv-00292-JJM-AEM Document 7 Filed 05/15/26 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
The Government’s position is that Mr. Pacheco Guaman is “lawfully detained
pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) as an alien present in the United States who has
not been admitted or paroled, and who is therefore subject to mandatory detention.”
ECF No. 4 at 2. As support for this position, the Government cites to recent decisions
from the Eighth and Fifth Circuits.
	Id.;
see Avila v. Bondi, 170 F.4th 1128 (8th Cir.
2026);
Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, 166 F.4th 494 (5th Cir. 2026).
The Government ignores the fact that this Court—and the overwhelming
majority of district courts—have rejected this position.
	See, e.g.,
Morales v. Hyde,
No. 26-cv-093-JJM-PAS, 2026 WL 508811, at *1 (D.R.I. Feb. 24, 2025) (collecting
cases from the District of Rhode Island);
Barco Mercado v. Francis, 811 F. Supp. 3d
487, 	494 	(S.D.N.Y. 	2025) 	(explaining 	that 	similarly 	situated 	petitioners 	“have
prevailed, either on a preliminary or final basis, in 350 [out of 362] cases decided by
over 160 different judges sitting in about fifty different courts spread across the
United States”).
Three federal courts of appeals have also rejected the Government’s position.
See Barbosa da Cunha v. Freden, No. 25-3141-pr, --- F.4th ----, 2026 WL 1146044, at
*2 (2d Cir. Apr. 28, 2026) (holding that 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) “does not apply to . .
. noncitizens, who are present in the United States after entering the country without
inspection and admission, and who were not apprehended while entering the country
or shortly thereafter”);
Hernandez Alvarez v. Warden, Fed. Det. Ctr. Mia., Nos. 25-
14065, 25-14075, --- F.4th ----, 2026 WL 1243395, at *1 (11th Cir. May 6, 2026) (“We
are unpersuaded by the Government’s re-interpretation of § 1225(b)(2)(A).”);
Lopez-
Case 1:26-cv-00292-JJM-AEM Document 7 Filed 05/15/26 Page 2 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
Campos v. Raycraft, Nos. 25-1965, 1969, 1978, 1982, --- F.4th ----, 2026 WL 1283891,
at *11 (6th Cir. May 11, 2026) (“We therefore find that an “applicant for admission”
is not necessarily ‘seeking admission.’ Because no Petitioner is alleged to be seeking
admission or lawful entry into the United States, § 1225(b)(2)(A)’s mandatory
detention scheme does not apply to them.”).
In case it bears repeating, the Court will remind the Government that its
power to detain a noncitizen must be grounded in a specific provision of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”).
	See, e.g.,
Gonzalez Lopez v. Wesling,
No. 26-cv-047-JJM-AEM, --- F. Supp. 3d ----, 2026 WL 309607, at *1 (D.R.I. Feb. 5,
2026);
accord Hechavarria v. Sessions, 891 F.3d 49, 54 (2d Cir. 2018). 	Here, the
Government argues that 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) is the authority that gives it the power
to detain Mr. Pacheco Guaman. ECF No. 4 at 2. Not so.
As this Court has stated in
Tomas Elias and the litany of cases that have
followed it, this INA provision does
not provide the Government with the legal
authority to detain individuals in Mr. Pacheco Guaman’s position.
	See, e.g.,
Tomas
Elias v. Hyde, No. 25-cv-540-JJM-AEM, 2025 WL 3004437, at *2-3 (D.R.I. Oct. 27,
2025). As someone who has resided in the United States since 2009,
see ECF No. 1,
Mr. 	Pacheco 	Guaman 	cannot 	fairly 	be described 	as 	someone 	who 	is 	“seeking
admission” into the country, so 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) does not and cannot apply to
him.
The Government submits that, “should the Court apply the reasoning in
Tomas
Elias . . ., it would likely find that [Mr. Pacheco Guaman] merits habeas relief.” ECF
Case 1:26-cv-00292-JJM-AEM Document 7 Filed 05/15/26 Page 3 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
No. 4 at 3. The Court agrees. Based on the reasoning provided in
Tomas Elias, Mr.
Pacheco Guaman does merit habeas relief. As such, the Court GRANTS his Petition.
ECF No. 1.
II. 	REMEDY
As for next steps, there is a dispute over what remedy is proper for Mr. Pacheco
Guaman. 	The Government argues that Mr. Pacheco Guaman is not entitled to
immediate release from ICE custody. ECF No. 4 at 1 n.1. Instead, the Government
contends that Mr. Pacheco Guaman has a prior criminal history, and that “[a] bond
hearing is appropriate so that the Immigration Court may assess whether [he] poses
a danger to the community.”
Id.
Of course, this is completely antithetical to the Government’s original position.
The Government has consistently maintained that those who are subject to 8 U.S.C.
§ 1225(b)(2) are statutorily
ineligible for bond hearings.
See, e.g.,
Matter of Q. Li, 29
I&N Dec. 66, 69 (BIA 2025) (citing
Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281, 298 (2018)).
And, in this case, the Government does not claim that it has the authority to detain
Mr. Pacheco Guaman under any statute other than 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). But again,
this statute does not apply to Mr. Pacheco Guaman’s particular circumstances.
Recall that the Government’s power to detain
must be grounded in a specific
provision of the INA. Thus, considering that the Government did not have the lawful
authority to detain Mr. Pacheco Guaman in the first place, and given that it fails to
cite any other legal authority under which he may be detained, it follows then that
the proper remedy is to order Mr. Pacheco Guaman’s immediate release.
Case 1:26-cv-00292-JJM-AEM Document 7 Filed 05/15/26 Page 4 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
The Court will also order a bond hearing for Mr. Pacheco Guaman pursuant to
8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). At the bond hearing, the Government will be free to argue to an
IJ, as it attempts to do here, that Mr. Pacheco Guaman should be detained. However,
the Government will have the obligation to prove this point either by clear and
convincing evidence that he poses a danger to the community or by preponderance of
the evidence that he poses a flight risk.
	See Hernandez-Lara v. Lyons, 10 F.4th 19,
41 (1st Cir. 2021).
III. 	CONCLUSION
The Court therefore GRANTS Mr. Pacheco Guaman’s habeas petition. 	ECF
No. 1. 	The Government is hereby ORDERED to release Manuel Ignacio Pacheco
Guaman immediately. Per its request, the Government is permitted to transfer Mr.
Pacheco Guaman to ICE’s Boston Field Office in Burlington, Massachusetts for the
sole purpose of processing his release and allowing for any return of property. ECF
No. 4 at 1 n.1. However, the Court DENIES the Government’s additional request to
place “any monitoring equipment deemed appropriate.”
Id. Because the Government
did not have the lawful authority to detain Mr. Pacheco Guaman in the first place,
the Court will not permit the Government to keep him “in custody” through the use
of monitoring equipment pending the bond hearing.
See Morales v. Hyde, No. 26-cv-
093-JJM-PAS, 2026 WL 508811, at *3-4 (D.R.I. Feb. 24, 2026) (denying similar
request from the Government because “[i]t does not follow . . . that ICE gets to keep
[the 	petitioner] 	‘in 	custody’ 	once 	he 	leaves 	the 	Wyatt 	Detention 	Facility”).
Case 1:26-cv-00292-JJM-AEM Document 7 Filed 05/15/26 Page 5 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

6
Effectuating Mr. Pacheco Guaman’s transfer to Burlington shall not in any way
impede his immediate release.
The Government is also ORDERED to provide Manuel Ignacio Pacheco
Guaman with a bond hearing before an IJ under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within ten (10)
days of the date of this order. 	Should it choose to pursue Mr. Pacheco Guaman’s
continued detention, the Government must show why less restrictive alternatives to
detention would be inadequate for it to achieve its goals.
	See Higiro v. Nessinger,
No. 26-cv-105-JJM-AEM, 2026 WL 710297, at *8 (D.R.I. Mar. 13, 2026) (finding that
due process requires IJs to consider alternatives to detention at bond hearings to
ensure that detention is not arbitrarily imposed and bears a reasonable relation to
the Government’s interests). 	The IJ shall consider any alternatives to detention
before making a finding as to flight risk or dangerousness.
	See Brito v. Garland, 22
F.4th 240, 254 (1st Cir. 2021) (noting that to require otherwise would be “to put the
cart before the horse”).
Finally, the Court ORDERS the Government to file a status report within five
(5) days of Mr. Pacheco Guaman’s bond hearing, stating whether he has been granted
bond. 	If Mr. Pacheco Guaman’s request for bond is denied, the Government shall
state the reason for that denial and whether Mr. Pacheco Guaman has been re-
detained by ICE.
Case 1:26-cv-00292-JJM-AEM Document 7 Filed 05/15/26 Page 6 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

7
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/John J. McConnell, Jr.
_________________________________
JOHN J. MCCONNELL, JR.
Chief Judge
United States District Court
May 15, 2026
Case 1:26-cv-00292-JJM-AEM Document 7 Filed 05/15/26 Page 7 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>