govinfo:USCOURTS-vtd-2_26-cv-00149-0

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT  
FOR THE 
DISTRICT OF VERMONT 
 
 
ELIAS GUZMAN GARCIA, 
 
               Petitioner, 
 
      v. 
 
DAVID WESLING, ACTING FIELD 
DIRECTOR OF BOSTON FIELD, U.S. 
IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS 
ENFORCEMENT; TODD M. LYONS, 
ACTING DIRECTOR, U.S. IMMIGRATION 
AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT; 
MARKWAYNE MULLIN, SECRETARY OF 
THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 
SECURITY; AND GREG HALE, 
SUPERINTENDENT OF NORTHWEST STATE 
CORRECTIONAL FACILITY,  
 
              Respondents. 
) 
) 
) 
) 
)    Case No. 2:26-cv-149 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
 
OPINION AND ORDER 
Before the Court is Petitioner Elias Guzman Garcia’s 
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.  ECF 
No. 1.  He seeks relief including a declaration “that 
Petitioner’s detention violates the Due Process Clause of the 
Fifth Amendment as well as the relevant statute and regulations 
governing detention of noncitizens” and a “Writ of Habeas Corpus 
ordering Respondents to release Petitioner immediately[.]”  ECF 
No. 1 at 10.  The Federal Respondents concede that under recent 
Second Circuit precedent, Petitioner is not subject to mandatory 
detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2).  ECF No. 8 at 2. 
2:26-cv-00149-wks     Document 10     Filed 05/05/26     Page 1 of 5
2 
 
I. Factual Background 
In his Petition, Petitioner states that he is a twenty-six-
year-old Mexican citizen who entered the United States without 
inspection through the southern border in 2006 and was never 
encountered by Border Patrol.  ECF No. 1 at 2-3; see also ECF 
No. 8 at 1 (“Petitioner is a Mexican citizen who entered the 
United States without admission or parole on or about 2006.”).  
He has a son, who is six years old and is a United States 
citizen.  Id. at 2.  Petitioner was at liberty in the United 
States for over twenty years before April 12th, 2026, on which 
date “he was detained while working by [Customs and Border 
Patrol] officers near Newport, [Vermont].”  ECF No. 1 at 3. 
Petitioner is currently detained at Northwest State 
Correctional Facility.  ECF No. 8 at 2. 
II. Discussion 
 Petitioner requests an order from this Court directing his 
immediate release, ECF No. 1 at 10.  He also argues that he is 
entitled to declaratory relief as a member of a class certified 
by the District of Massachusetts, and brings a claim under the 
Administrative Procedure Act.  Id. at 6-9.   
The Federal Respondents concede that the Second Circuit’s 
recent decision in Barbosa da Cunha v. Freden, --- F. 4th ----, 
2026 WL 1146044, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 12201 (2d Cir. Apr. 28, 
2026) “controls the central legal issue in this petition: 
2:26-cv-00149-wks     Document 10     Filed 05/05/26     Page 2 of 5
3 
 
whether Petitioner is subject to mandatory detention under 8 
U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) or whether he is subject to detention under 
8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and entitled to a bond hearing.”  ECF No. 8 
at 2.  Under Barbosa da Cunha, the Second Circuit held that 
Section 1226(a) “plainly applies to noncitizens, like 
Petitioner, who are already present in the United States.”
1  
Barbosa da Cunha, 2026 WL 1146044 at *5. 
The Federal Respondents assert that the “Government is 
assessing whether to seek further appellate review” of Barbosa 
da Cunha but acknowledge that, “[w]hile reserving all rights, 
including the right to appeal, on the issue of the proper 
detention authority for noncitizens, like Petitioner, who are 
present in the United States, Federal Respondents acknowledge 
that Barbosa da Cunha controls” and that “Petitioner is 
therefore entitled to a custody redetermination (bond) hearing 
in immigration court should he request one.”  ECF No. 8 at 2. 
 
1 Previously, this Court had also found that Federal Respondents 
unlawfully detained other habeas petitioners under 
8 U.S.C. § 1225(b), rather than 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a).  See, e.g., 
Piedrahita-Sanchez v. Turek, et al., No. 25-cv-875 (D. Vt. Nov. 
14, 2025) (ECF No. 13); Jerez Andrade v. Trump, No. 2:26-cv-69, 
2026 WL 755018, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55130 (D. Vt. Mar. 17, 
2026).  The Second Circuit observed in Barbosa da Cunha that its 
holding “is consistent with the decisions of over 370 district 
judges across the Nation” and that “over ninety percent of 
district court judges have sided with Petitioner”: in the Second 
Circuit, “as of mid-February 2026, the government has prevailed 
in only approximately fifteen cases, while losing in 
approximately 145 cases.”  Barbosa da Cuna, 2026 WL 1146044 at 
*4. 
2:26-cv-00149-wks     Document 10     Filed 05/05/26     Page 3 of 5
4 
 
In Barbosa da Cunha, the “district court granted the 
petition and ordered the government to either provide a bond 
hearing or release Petitioner within ten days” and an 
“immigration judge, recognizing that Petitioner presents no 
danger to persons or property or risk of flight, released him on 
bond.”  Barbosa da Cunha, 2026 WL 1146044 *2. 
 Accordingly, the Court holds that Petitioner is entitled to 
an individualized bond hearing before an Immigration Judge 
pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a).  The Court does not reach the 
other issues raised in the petition. 
III. Conclusion 
 For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner’s Petition for a Writ 
of Habeas Corpus is GRANTED in part.  The Court ORDERS that 
Petitioner is entitled to a bond hearing, and the Federal 
Respondents are ORDERED to hold an individualized bond hearing 
before an Immigration Judge pursuant to 1226(a) for Petitioner 
on or before May 8, 2026.  In the alternative, Federal 
Respondents may immediately release the Petitioner. 
 The Court also ORDERS that a hearing will be held on 
Monday, May 11, 2026, at 1:30 p.m. if Petitioner has not been 
released before that time.  At the hearing, the parties shall 
address the Petitioner’s detention status.
2:26-cv-00149-wks     Document 10     Filed 05/05/26     Page 4 of 5
If Petitioner has been released, the parties should submit 
a joint status report informing the Court about the status of 
the case and whether the Court may dissolve its previously 
entered TRO.  At that time, the parties should also consider 
whether they wish to submit a joint stipulation of dismissal of 
the case. 
 Finally, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s motion for his 
counsel to appear pro hac vice.  ECF No. 7. 
DATED at Burlington, in the District of Vermont, this 5th 
day of May 2026 
      /s/ William K. Sessions III 
      Hon. William K. Sessions III 
      U.S. District Court Judge 
 
2:26-cv-00149-wks     Document 10     Filed 05/05/26     Page 5 of 5

Passage view · GavelSight