BONDI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

ELMER ARTURO PACHECO PAIZ, )

)

Petitioner, )

VS. ) Civil Action No, 3:25-cv-426

) Judge Stephanie L. Haines

TODD M. LYONS, in his official capacityas ) Magistrate Judge Richard A. Lanzillo

Field Office Director of Enforcement and )

Removal Operations, Philadelphia Field )

Office, Immigration and Customs )

Enforcement, et al.,

Respondents.

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Presently before the Court is a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 2241 filed by Elmer Arturo Pacheco Paiz (“Petitioner”) (ECF No. 1). Petitioner is detained by

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) and challenges his mandatory immigration

detention pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A). Petitioner asserts he is subject to detention under

8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) which allows him potential release on bond. This matter was referred to

Magistrate Judge Richard A. Lanzillo for proceedings in accordance with the Federal Magistrates

Act, 28 U.S. C. § 636, and Local Civil Rule 72.D.

On May 26, 2026, Magistrate Judge Lanzillo filed a Report and Recommendation (ECF

No. 10) recommending that the Petition (ECF No. 1) be granted to the extent Petitioner requests

an individualized bond hearing before a neutral immigration judge pursuant to 8 U.S.C, § 1226

and denied to the extent that it seeks other relief. ECF No. 10, p. 1. Petitioner’s detention under

the Board of Immigration and Appeals decision in Matter of Jonathan Javier Yajure Hurtado, 29

I&N Dec. 216, 228-29 (BIA 2025), that resulted in the mandatory detention of aliens who entered

the United States without inspection, regardless of where they were apprehended or how long they

have been physically present in the United States, has been soundly rejected by the overwhelming

majority of district courts, including this one. The Parties were advised they could file objections

to the Report and Recommendation within fourteen days and were given another fourteen days to

respond to any objections. See 28 U.S.C.§ 636 (b)(1)(B) and (C) and Local Civil Rule 72.D.2.

Respondents filed timely objections (ECF No. 11) continuing to argue the merits of

Hurtado as applied to the facts of this case. This Court finds Respondent’s arguments summarily

unavailing. See Calzado Diaz v. Noem, No. 3:25- cv-458, 2025 WL 3628480 (W.D. Pa. Dec. 15,

2025) (Haines, J.), vacated as moot, ECF No. 22 (Dec. 17, 2025) (the legal conclusions

in Calzado are unaffected by the mooting of the order due to the individual facts of Mr. Calzado

Diaz's case); A.D. v. Leonard Oddo et. al., No. CV 25-460J, 2026 WL 101476, at *1 (W.D. Pa.

Jan. 14, 2026).

Respondents also argue under Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281, 304 (2018) (holding

the statute expressly and unequivocally imposes an affirmative prohibition on releasing detained

aliens under any other conditions). However, “Jennings had not reached the merits of the

constitutional challenge to prolonged detention without a bond hearing under § 1226(c) .... So it

construed German Santos’s claim as an “as-applied” challenge to § 1226(c)....”. German Santos,

965 F.3d 203, 207 (3d Cir. 2020). This Court interprets this case similarly in that Petitioner has

lodged an “as applied” constitutional challenge to his detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225 and,

therefore, Jennings is not persuasive.

Upon review of the record and the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 10) pursuant to

Local Civil Rule 72.D.2, the Court will accept in whole the findings and recommendations of

Magistrate Judge Lanzillo in this matter. Judge Lanzillo correctly found that Petitioner’s detention

is rightly considered under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and as such he is entitled to a bond hearing .

Accordingly, the following order is entered:

ORDER

AND NOW, this 11" day of June, 2026, IT IS ORDERED that the petition for a writ of

habeas corpus (ECF No. 1) hereby is GRANTED. Respondents are directed to provide Petitioner

with the statutory process required under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), which includes a bond hearing before

a neutral immigration judge within seven (7) days of this Order; and,

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the bond hearing shall include an individualized

determination of whether Petitioner poses a danger to the community or a flight risk under the

ordinary § 1226(a) framework. The immigration judge shall state the reasons for the custody

determination orally on the record or in writing. If bond is denied, the immigration judge shall

identify the principal facts and evidence relied upon in determining that Petitioner poses a danger

to the community, a flight risk, or both. Nothing in this Order requires the immigration judge to

reach any particular custody determination; and,

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Petitioner is not provided with a bond hearing by the

timeframe specified, or if the immigration judge declines to conduct a bond hearing based on

Matter of Yajure Hurtado, 29 1&N Dec. 216 (BIA 2025), Matter of Q. Li, 29 I&N Dec. 66 (BIA

2025), or the statutory interpretation of Section 1225(b)(2) that this Court has rejected, the writ

shall issue and Respondents shall immediately release Petitioner from custody; and,

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondents shall provide notice to the Court of the

outcome of the individualized bond hearing within seven (7) days of the date of the immigration

judge’s decision; and,

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Lanzillo’s Report and

Recommendation (ECF No. 10) is adopted as the Opinion of the Court; and,

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondents Objections (ECF No. 11) are

OVERRULED; and,

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to mark this matter closed.

PR & □□

dine

° Stephanie L. Haines

United States District Judge