Macas Gutama v. Nessinger et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
JORGE EDUARDO MACAS
GUTAMA,
Petitioner,
v.
MICHAEL NESSINGER,
Warden,
Wyatt Detention Facility; TODD
LYONS,
Senior Official Performing the
Duties of Director, Immigration and
Customs Enforcement; MARKWAYNE
MULLIN,
Secretary, U.S. Department
of Homeland Security; and TODD
BLANCHE,
Acting U.S. Attorney
General,
Respondents.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 26-cv-277-JJM-PAS
ORDER
Jorge Eduardo Macas Gutama 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 or given a bond
hearing before an immigration judge (“IJ”) pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). ECF No. 1.
In its Response, the Government states that the legal issues presented in this case
are like those recently addressed by this Court in
Tomas Elias v. Hyde, No. 25-cv-
540-JJM-AEM, 2025 WL 3004437 (D.R.I. Oct. 27, 2025). ECF No. 4 at 2. Though the
Government notes some disagreement with that decision,1 it acknowledges that
1 Specifically, the Government cites to a recent decision from the Fifth Circuit
that is to the contrary.
	See ECF No. 4 at 1 (citing
Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, 166
Case 1:26-cv-00277-JJM-PAS Document 5 Filed 05/07/26 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
should the Court follow its reasoning in
Tomas Elias, it would likely reach the same
result in Mr. Macas Gutama’s case.
	Id. at 2-3. 	The reasoning provided in
Tomas
Elias remains correct. As such, the Court finds that Mr. Macas Gutama’s detention
is unlawful, and that he is entitled to immediate release and a bond hearing before
an IJ. Mr. Macas Gutama’s petition is therefore GRANTED. ECF No. 1.
The Government is hereby ORDERED to release Jorge Eduardo Macas
Gutama immediately. Per its request, the Government is permitted to transfer Mr.
Macas Gutama 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. Macas Gutama 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
F.4th 494 (5th Cir. 2026));
see also Avila v. Bondi, 170 F.4th 1128 (8th Cir. 2026)
(same). Of course, that decision is not binding on this Court, and the Court does not
find its reasoning to be persuasive. 	The Court is instead persuaded by the Second
and Eleventh Circuits’ position on the issue.
See 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).”).
Case 1:26-cv-00277-JJM-PAS Document 5 Filed 05/07/26 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
[the 	petitioner] 	‘in 	custody’ 	once 	he 	leaves 	the 	Wyatt 	Detention 	Facility”).
Effectuating Mr. Macas Gutama’s transfer to Burlington shall not in any way impede
his immediate release.
The Government is also ORDERED to provide Jorge Eduardo Macas Gutama
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. Macas Gutama’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. Macas Gutama’s bond hearing, stating whether he has been granted
bond. If Mr. Macas Gutama’s request for bond is denied, the Government shall state
the reason for that denial and whether Mr. Macas Gutama has been re-detained by
ICE.
Case 1:26-cv-00277-JJM-PAS Document 5 Filed 05/07/26 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/John J. McConnell, Jr.
_________________________________
JOHN J. MCCONNELL, JR.
Chief Judge
United States District Court
May 7, 2026
Case 1:26-cv-00277-JJM-PAS Document 5 Filed 05/07/26 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>