MEDINA HURTADO v. FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
ROBEISY MEDINA HURTADO, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
v. ) 3:26cv775
) Electronic Filing
FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, )
WARDEN OF MOSHANNON VALLEY )
PROCESSING CENTER, )
)
Respondents. )
MEMORANDUM ORDER
AND NOW this 15th day of October, 2026, upon due consideration of petitioner's motion
to enforce this Court's Judgment Order of September 14, 2026, and the parties' submissions in
conjunction therewith, IT IS ORDERED that [14] the motion be, and the same hereby is,
granted.
Petitioner's central contention is that respondents failed to comply with this court's
Judgment Order because she never was physically released from custody. Instead, respondents
rearrested her before she was able to leave Moshannon Valley Processing Center. This
assertedly runs afoul of being "released" as mandated by the Judgment Order and compliance
requires respondents to permit her to leave Moshannon before rearresting her. And so petitioner
requests the court now order her actual release.
Respondents contend that petitioner has been rearrested in a manner that complies with
the court's order. They proffer only an I-286 Notice of Custody Determination to establish this
Case 3:26-cv-00775-DSC Document 17 Filed 10/15/26 Page 1 of 5

2
critical fact. The court finds this form in itself is insufficient to comply with the court's order of
September 14, 2026.
The violation upon which the court granted relief was the respondents' misinterpretation
of the scope and structure of 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) and the concomitant denial of the protections
afforded by the process afforded under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), all of which amounted to petitioner
being held in violation of the laws and constitution of the United States. In doing so the court
observed that "Respondents' consistent position for ongoing detention has been § 1225(a)(2) and
their recent notice does not identify any other statutory authority for detention." That defect
continues to this day.
To cure this unlawful and unconstitutional violation respondents must show in the record
before this court that they have purged that wrongful detention and petitioner is now being
detained pursuant to some other statutorily authorized process that seemingly passes
constitutional muster. Merely showing that they have offered petitioner a bond hearing does not
cure the unlawful and unconstitutional detention upon which relief was granted. If they cannot
make this showing, they must actually release petitioner from detention.
Congress authorized the seizure and detention of aliens who are discovered within the
interior of the Country pending a decision on whether the individual is removable from the
United States. 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). That authority may be exercised through "a warrant issued
by the Attorney General." Id. And the statute vests a considerable degree of discretion in the
Attorney General as to whether to detain or release the alien on bond with various conditions.
Id. at §§ 1226(a)(1) & (2).
Pursuant to this authority, the Secretary has promulgated regulations that govern aliens
detained pursuant to § 1226(a). Detainees held pursuant to that authority may be released on
Case 3:26-cv-00775-DSC Document 17 Filed 10/15/26 Page 2 of 5

3
bond by Immigration and Customs Enforcement or an immigration judge "if the detainee
'demonstrate[s] ... that such release would not pose a danger to property or persons, and that [he]
is likely to appear for any future proceeding.'" Borbot v. Warden Hudson County Correctional
Facility, 906 F.3d 274, 275 (3d Cir. 2018) (quoting 8 C.F.R. § 236.1(c)(8)). If detained at the
initial bond hearing, a § 1226(a) detainee may request a custody redetermination hearing before
an Immigration Judge. Id. (citing 8 C.F.R. § 236.1(d)(1)). A redetermination hearing will be
held "only upon a showing that the alien's circumstances have changed materially." Id. (quoting
8 C.F.R. § 1003.19(e)). "Both the initial bond determination and subsequent custody decisions
can be appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA)." Id. (citing 8 C.F.R. §
236.1(d)(3)).
Moreover, the Secretary has established regulations which govern the authorization of
detention and the detainee's ability to initiate review of decisions requiring detention. As a
general matter, aliens may be detained under § 1226(a) when "[a]t the time of issuance of the
notice to appear, or at any time thereafter and up to the time removal proceedings are completed,
the [detainee has been] arrested and taken into custody under the authority of Form I–200,
Warrant of Arrest." 8 C.F.R § 236.1(b). The immigration officers authorized to issue such
warrants are identified in 8 C.F.R. § 287.5(e)(2) and those who are authorized to serve such
warrants are listed in § 287.5(e)(3). 8 C.F.R. § 236.1(b)(1). The Secretary has implemented the
established Form I-200 (Warrant for Arrest of Alien) to effectuate a properly authorized arrest
warrant.
Applications for an initial redetermination hearing before an Immigration Judge by
those administratively arrested and detained may be made orally, in writing or, if authorized by
the immigration judge, by telephone. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.19. Such a request is to be made to 1) the
Case 3:26-cv-00775-DSC Document 17 Filed 10/15/26 Page 3 of 5

4
Immigration Court having jurisdiction over the place of detention; 2) the Immigration Court
having administrative control over the case; or 3) the Office of the Chief Immigration Judge
requesting a designation of the appropriate Immigration Court. Id. (in that order). The Secretary
has promulgated Standard Form I-286 (Notice of Custody Determination) providing a detainee
with notice of detention and the ability to request review of the detention decision by an
immigration judge.
Here, the record fails to demonstrate that the respondents have properly exercised the
authority provided under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) to arrest petitioner. There is no evidence that
petitioner was "rearrested" at Moshannon pursuant to a valid warrant issued by the Attorney
General. She simply was served with a Notice of Custody Determination. An administrative
change in detention status does not satisfy the statutory directive needed to invoke the authority
afforded to the Secretary under § 1226(a). To the contrary, the statute specifically directs the
authority may be exercised through "a warrant issued by the Attorney General." Id. And the
Secretary's own regulations establish that the detainee must be "arrested and taken into custody
under the authority of Form I–200, Warrant of Arrest." 8 C.F.R § 236.1(b). Because the record
lacks this critical step and is insufficient to establish that the unlawful and unconstitutional
detention has formally been purged pursuant to a proper exercise of some other statutory
authority for petitioner's ongoing detention, the court will grant the motion to enforce and re-
issue a directive to release petitioner unless and until respondents have provided lawful and
constitutional justification for her ongoing detention.
In light of the above, the following order is appropriate:
• Respondents shall release petitioner forthwith from the unlawful and
unconstitutional detention highlighted in the Court's September 14, 2026,
Judgment Order;
Case 3:26-cv-00775-DSC Document 17 Filed 10/15/26 Page 4 of 5

5
• In the event petitioner is rearrested upon her release pursuant to a warrant issued
by the Attorney General in accordance with his authority and the established
regulations and practices under § 1226(a), or some other statutorily authorized
process permitting arrest, then upon Petitioner's request respondents shall cause
Petitioner to be taken before a neutral immigration judge of the Executive Office
of Immigration Review for an individualized bond hearing, which hearing shall
occur within established timelines and customary practices governing such
proceedings; and
• In the event petitioner is rearrested upon her release, respondents shall ensure that
any required hearing under § 1226(a) includes the required attributes of due
process, i.e., at a minimum, factfinding based on a record produced before the
decisionmaker in which Petitioner has the opportunity to testify and submit
evidence, and with the record being disclosed to Petitioner; an opportunity to
make arguments on the Petitioner’s behalf; and the right to an individualized
determination of Petitioner’s interests. See Ghanem v. Warden
Essex Cnty. Corr. Facility, No. 21-1908, 2022 WL 574624, at *2
(3d Cir. Feb. 25, 2022).
• Respondents also shall ensure that Petitioner is provided with interpretation
services in Petitioner's native language during the hearing to the extent Petitioner
is not sufficiently conversant in English; and
IT FURTHER IS ORDERED that respondents file a status report on the implementation
of this order on or before October 22, 2026.
s/ David Stewart Cercone
David Stewart Cercone
Senior United States District Judge
cc: Brendan T. Conway, AUSA
(Via CM/ECF Electronic Mail)
Robeisy Medina Hurtado
A244259765
Moshannon Valley Processing Center
555 Geo Drive
Philipsburg, PA 16866
(Via first class mail)
Case 3:26-cv-00775-DSC Document 17 Filed 10/15/26 Page 5 of 5