UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

PEDRO MARCELO MACANCELA BUESTAN, Civil Action No. Petitioner, 25-16034 (MEF)

v. OPINION and ORDER

CORY CHU, et al.,

Respondents.

* * * The Petitioner is in the custody of immigration officials in New Jersey, see Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”) at ¶ 3 (Docket Entry 1), and alleges that he is not being permitted to seek bond, under a Board of Immigration Appeals decision. See id. ¶¶ 2–3. The decision, see Matter of Yajure Hurtado,

(B.I.A. 2025), rests on the idea that immigration detainees situated like the Petitioner are held under

(b)(2)(A) (which generally does not allow for bond applications), not

(a) (which sometimes does). But as a matter of plain-text reading, it is § 1226(a) that applies to people situated like the Petitioner, not § 1225(b)(2)(A).1 Therefore, the Petitioner’s current detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A) is in violation of the laws of the United States, and he is entitled to habeas relief.

1 More than 20 federal courts have landed on essentially that conclusion. See Castillo v. Lyons,

, at *1 n.1 (D.N.J. Oct. 10, 2025) (noting this). Among these cases are two from this court. See id.; Zumba v. Bondi,

, at *10 (D.N.J. Sept. 26, 2025). What that relief might ultimately be is unclear. But ata minimum, it includes this: the Petitioner shall be treated by the Respondents as detained under § 1226(a). The Respondents shall file a letter on or before October 27 at 3:00pm, indicating whether the Petitioner has been afforded a § 1226(a) bond hearing and, if not, why not. In light of this Opinion and Order, the Court need not, for now, reach the Petitioner’s requests for additional relief. IT IS on this 21st day of October 2025, so ORDERED.

Michael E/ Farbiarz, U.S.D.J.