# Lagarda-Vega

> District Court, S.D. California · December 11, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11221953

## Case

- **Full name:** Sergio Luis Lagarda-Vega v. Kristi Noem, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; Todd Lyons, Acting Director, U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement; Patrick Divver, ICE San Diego Field Office Director; Christopher J. LaRose, Senior Warden, Otay Mesa Detention Center; Sirce Owen, Acting
- **Court:** District Court, S.D. California
- **Decided:** December 11, 2025
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11221953

## Opinion text

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 SERGIO LUIS LAGARDA-VEGA, Case No.: 3:25-cv-02970-GPC-DDL

12 Petitioner,
ORDER GRANTING PETITION
v.
13 FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
KRISTI NOEM, Secretary of the
PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 2241
14 Department of Homeland Security; TODD

LYONS, Acting Director, U.S.
15 [ECF No. 1]
Immigrations and Customs Enforcement;
16 PATRICK DIVVER, ICE San Diego
Field Office Director; CHRISTOPHER J.
17
LAROSE, Senior Warden, Otay Mesa
18 Detention Center; SIRCE OWEN, Acting
Director, Executive Office for
19
Immigration Review, U.S. Department of
20 Justice; PAMELA BONDI, United States
Attorney General, in their official
21
capacities,
22
Respondents.
23
24 On November 2, 2025, Petitioner Sergio Luis Lagarda-Vega (“Petitioner”) filed a
25 petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 seeking release from
26 custody, or in the alternative, an order for order a constitutionally adequate bond hearing.
27
1 ECF No. 1. Respondents filed a return to the petition on November 8, 2025, ECF No. 3,
2 and Plaintiff filed a Traverse on November 14, 2025, ECF No. 6. For the following reasons,
3 the Court GRANTS the petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
4 BACKGROUND
5 Petitioner, a Mexican national, has lived in the United States for over four years after
6 entering the country without inspection at a non-designated location in 2021. ECF No. 1 ¶
7 28. Petitioner is married to a United States citizen and is the stepfather to two minor U.S.-
8 born daughters. Id. ¶¶ 30-31.
9 ICE officers arrested Petitioner on August 4, 2025. Id. ¶ 32. Petitioner was served
10 with a Notice to Appear, and removal proceedings were initiated against him before the
11 Otay Mesa Immigration Court. Id. ¶ 33. Petitioner remains in DHS custody at the Otay
12 Mesa Detention Center. Id. ¶ 1. He has not received any individualized hearing to justify
13 his detention. Id. ¶ 37.
14 On November 2, 2025, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus. ECF No.
15 1. The Petition asserts that Petitioner’s detention violates the Immigration and Nationality
16 Act (“INA”) and the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. ECF No. 1, ¶¶ 38-45. Thus,
17 Petitioner requests a writ of habeas corpus ordering Petitioner’s release or, alternatively,
18 an order mandating a constitutionally adequate bond hearing before a neutral
19 decisionmaker.
20 DISCUSSION
21 I. Legal Standard
22 Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, a writ of habeas corpus may be granted to any petitioner
23 who demonstrates that he is “in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties
24 of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3); see Rasul v. Bush, 542 U.S. 466, 473 (2004).
25 The writ of habeas corpus is “available to every individual detained within the United
26 States.” Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 525 (2004).
27
1 As explained by the Supreme Court, “the essence of habeas corpus is an attack by a
2 person in custody upon the legality of that custody, and . . . the traditional function of the
3 writ is to secure release from illegal custody.” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484
4 (1973); Pinson v. Carvajal, 69 F.4th 1059, 1067 (9th Cir. 2023) (habeas actions limited to
5 challenges of the legality or duration of confinement). A habeas petitioner bears the burden
6 of demonstrating that “[h]e is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties
7 of the United States.” See Espinoza v. Sabol, 558 F.3d 83, 89 (1st Cir. 2009).
8 II. Subject Matter Jurisdiction
9 Respondents maintain that this Court lacks jurisdiction over Petitioner’s claims
10 under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1252(b)(9) and (g). ECF. No. 3 at 6-9.1 Petitioner responds that
11 § 1252(b)(9) does not bar habeas review of collateral custody challenges and § 1252(g)
12 does not apply in this case. ECF No. 1, ¶ 10.
13 A. Section 1252(g) – Decisions by Attorney General
14 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g) states that, with limited exceptions, “no court shall have
15 jurisdiction to hear any cause or claim by or on behalf of any alien arising from the decision
16 or action by the Attorney General to commence proceedings, adjudicate cases, or execute
17 removal orders against any alien[.]” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g) (emphasis added); Reno v. Am.-
18 Arab Anti-Discrimination Comm., 525 U.S. 471, 482 (1999). In that light, § 1252(g) is a
19 narrow statutory provision that concentrates on those three discrete actions. Reno, 525 U.S.
20 at 482. Section 1252(g) “does not prohibit challenges to unlawful practices merely because
21 they are in some fashion connected to removal orders.” Ibarra-Perez v. United States, 154
22 F.4th 989, 997 (9th Cir. 2025). This section does not apply to “general collateral challenges
23 to unconstitutional practices and policies used by the agency.” Id. (internal quotation mark
24 and citation omitted).
25

26
1 Page numbers are based on the CM/ECF pagination.
27
1 Respondents argue that the § 1252(g) bar applies because Petitioner’s claims arise
2 “from the decision or action by the Attorney General to commence proceedings [and]
3 adjudicate cases.” ECF No. 3, at 7. Petitioner responds that he does not challenge DHS’s
4 decision to initiate removal proceedings and adjudicate or execute a removal order; rather
5 he is challenging DHS’s decision to classify his detention under § 1225(b)(2) instead of §
6 1226(a). ECF No. 6, at 4-5.
7 The Court agrees with Petitioner that how DHS exercises its detention authority in
8 classifying Petitioner does not fall within the three discrete actions identified in § 1252(g)
9 and, thus, would not deprive the Court of jurisdiction. See e.g., Constantinovici v. Bondi, -
10 - F. Supp. 3d --, 2025 WL 2898985, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 10, 2025) (court has jurisdiction
11 to consider challenges to detention as unlawful); Chavez v. Noem, -- F. Supp. 3d --, 2025
12 WL 2730228, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 24, 2025) (detention may be during but nonetheless
13 independent of the removal proceedings); Garcia v. Noem, No. 25-CV-02180-DMS-MMP,
14 2025 WL 2549431, at *3-4 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 3, 2025) (Petitioners’ challenge to the new
15 bond policy and the immigration judge order considering Petitioners detained under § 1225
16 rather than § 1226(a) does not fall under § 1252(g)).
17 Thus, § 1252(g) does not present a jurisdictional bar to the instant petition.
18 B. Section 1252(b)(9) – Zipper Clause
19 Section 1252(b)(9) states that “[j]udicial review of all questions of law and fact,
20 including interpretation and application of constitutional and statutory provisions, arising
21 from any action taken or proceeding brought to remove an alien from the United States
22 under this subchapter shall be available only in judicial review of a final order.” 8 U.S.C.
23 § 1252(b)(9). Section 1252(b)(9) is seen as a general jurisdictional limitation that channels
24 judicial review of immigration actions and decisions and acts as a zipper clause. Reno, 525
25 U.S. at 483. “However, what it ‘zips’ are requests for review of various kinds of agency
26 action which are heard by means of petitions for ‘judicial review’ . . . [i]t does not affect
27
1 petitions for habeas corpus.” Flores-Miramontes v. I.N.S., 212 F.3d 1133, 1139 (9th Cir.
2 2000). Claims that are “independent of or collateral to the removal process,” including the
3 legality of detention, fall outside the scope of § 1252(b)(9). Gonzalez v. U.S. Immigr. &
4 Customs Enf’t, 975 F.3d 788, 810 (9th Cir. 2020) (citation and internal quotations omitted)
5 (“Section 1252(b)(9) is also not a bar to jurisdiction over noncitizen class members’ claims
6 because claims challenging the legality of detention pursuant to an immigration detainer
7 are independent of the removal process.”); see also Nielsen v. Preap, 586 U.S. 392, 402
8 (2019).
9 Respondents argue that this Court lacks jurisdiction over Petitioner’s claim because
10 any issue arising, directly or indirectly, from any removal related activity can only be
11 reviewed through a petition for review process with the court of appeals. ECF No. 3 at 8-
12 9. Therefore, because Petitioner is challenging the government’s decision to detain him in
13 the first place, his claim is barred under § 1252(b)(9). Id. at 9. Petitioner disagrees, arguing
14 that he does not challenge the decision to commence proceedings, or even the discretionary
15 decision to detain; rather, Petitioner challenges the classification of his detention under §
16 1225(b)(2) instead of § 1226(a). ECF. No. 6, at 3.
17 The Court agrees that here, Petitioner is challenging his classification of detention
18 under § 1225(b)(2). ECF No. 1, ¶¶ 39-40. “Petitioner’s detention may be during, but is
19 nonetheless independent of, the removal proceedings.” Medina-Ortiz v. Noem, No. 25-cv-
20 02819-DMS-MMP, at *4 (S.D. Cal Oct. 30, 2025). Thus, § 1252(b)(9) does not present a
21 jurisdictional bar.2
22

23
24
2 In a footnote, the government alternatively argues that the Court should confirm that Petitioner has
properly exhausted administrative remedies. ECF No. 3, at 9 n.1. Petitioner argues that any appeal to the
25 BIA is futile in light of the BIA’s precedential decision in Matter of Yajure-Hurtado, 29 I&N Dec. 216
(BIA 2025), where it held that anyone deemed inadmissible under § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i) (that is, “[a]n alien
26 present in the United States without being admitted or paroled”) will be subject to mandatory detention
without bond under § 1225(b)(2). ECF No. 1, ¶ 4.
27
1 III. Merits
2 A. Whether the INA Subjects Petitioner to Mandatory Detention
3 The habeas petition raises an issue of statutory construction as to whether the
4 Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) subjects all applicants for admission, even non-
5 citizens who entered without admission or inspection and have resided in the United States
6 for years without lawful status, to mandatory detention for the duration of their immigration
7 proceedings. If so, an immigration judge would lack the authority to entertain a bond
8 request. Respondents argue that the plain language 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) imposes a
9 mandatory detention requirement and bars immigration judges from granting such a non-
10 citizen bond. Meanwhile, Petitioner contends that he is entitled to a bond hearing under 8
11 U.S.C. § 1226(a).
12 1. U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) and § 1226(a)
13
14

15
16 A petitioner must exhaust administrative remedies by appealing to the BIA before seeking judicial
remedies and include bond determinations. Leonardo v. Crawford, 646 F.3d 1157, 1160 (9th Cir. 2011).
17 “[A] court may waive the prudential exhaustion requirement if ‘administrative remedies are inadequate or
not efficacious, pursuit of administrative remedies would be a futile gesture, irreparable injury will result,
18 or the administrative proceedings would be void.’” Hernandez v. Sessions, 872 F.3d 976, 988 (9th Cir.
2017) (quoting Laing v. Ashcroft, 370 F.3d 994, 1000 (9th Cir. 2004)). “The party moving the court to
19
waive prudential exhaustion requirements bears the burden of demonstrating that at least one of these
20 Laing factors applies.” Aden v. Nielsen, No. C18-1441RSL, 2019 WL 5802013, at *2 (W.D. Wash. Nov.
7, 2019).
21
BIA's precedential decisions “serve as precedents in all proceedings involving the same issue or issues.”
22 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.1(g)(1), (d)(i). Because Matter of Yajure-Hurtado received a citation designation and
the BIA statement that “[t]his case presents an issue that the Board has not previously addressed in a
23 precedential decision--the Immigration Judge's authority to hold a bond hearing for an alien present in the
United States who has not been admitted after inspection,” see 29 I&N at 216, the Court concludes that
24 Matter of Yajure-Hurtado is a precedential decision.
25 Therefore, because the BIA is likely to hold that anyone who is deemed “[a]n alien present in the United
States without being admitted or paroled,” will be subjected to mandatory detention without bond under
26 § 1225(b)(2), Petitioner has shown that a BIA appeal would be futile. Accordingly, the Court finds that
the prudential exhaustion requirement is waived. See Garcia, 2025 WL 2549431, at *5.
27
1 Noncitizens are detained during removal proceedings under two statutes: 8 U.S.C.
2 §§ 1225 and 1226. Section 1225 governs inspection by immigration officers and expedited
3 removal proceedings for “applicants for admission” who are defined as an “alien present
4 in the United States who has not been admitted or who arrives in the United States.” 8
5 U.S.C. § 1225(a)(1). An applicant for admission “seeking admission or readmission to or
6 transit through the United States” is inspected by immigration officers. Id. § 1225(a)(3). If
7 an applicant is deemed inadmissible after inspection, the applicant will be subject to
8 expedited removal “without further hearing or review,” unless an intention to apply for
9 asylum is indicated where the applicant would then be referred for a credible fear interview.
10 Id. § 1225(b)(1)(A)(i)-(ii). For other applicants for admission, “if the examining
11 immigration officer determines that an alien seeking admission is not clearly and beyond a
12 doubt entitled to be admitted, the alien shall be detained for a proceeding under section
13 1229a.” Id. § 1225(b)(2)(A). A limited exception provides that a “noncitizen detained
14 under [s]ection 1225(b)(2) may be released if she is paroled ‘for urgent humanitarian
15 reasons or significant public benefit’ pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5)(A).” Jennings v.
16 Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281, 300 (2018). Otherwise, “detention under § 1225(b)(2) is
17 considered mandatory . . . [and] [i]ndividuals detained under § 1225 are not entitled to a
18 bond hearing.” Lepe v. Andrews, -- F. Supp. 3d --, 2025 WL 2716910, at *3 (E.D. Cal.
19 Sept. 23, 2025) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Lopez Benitez v. Francis, -- F.
20 Supp. 3d --, 2025 WL 2371588, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 13, 2025)).
21 In contrast, § 1226 addresses apprehension and detention of aliens and generally
22 governs the process of arresting and detaining aliens present in the United States, including
23 aliens who were inadmissible at the time of entry. Jennings, 583 U.S. at 288. Section 1226
24 states, “[o]n a warrant issued by the Attorney General, an alien may be arrested and
25 detained pending a decision on whether the alien is to be removed from the United States.”
26 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). Section 1226(c), however, “carves out a statutory category of aliens
27
1 who may not be released under § 1226(a),” which focuses on those who are inadmissible
2 or deportable because of certain crimes. Jennings, 583 U.S. at 296-97; 8 U.S.C. §§ 1226(a),
3 (c).
4 “When a person is apprehended under § 1226(a), an ICE officer makes the initial
5 custody determination,” Rodriguez Diaz, 53 F.4th 1189, 1196 (9th Cir. 2022) (citing 8
6 C.F.R. § 236.1(c)(8)), where the noncitizen “must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the
7 officer that such release would not pose a danger to property or persons, and that the alien
8 is likely to appear for any future proceeding.” 8 C.F.R. § 236.1(c)(8). After a decision has
9 been made, the noncitizen may request a bond hearing before an immigration judge. 8
10 C.F.R. § 236.1(d)(1). At the bond hearing, “the burden is on the non-citizen to ‘establish
11 to the satisfaction of the Immigration Judge . . . that he or she does not present a danger to
12 persons or property, is not a threat to the national security, and does not pose a risk of
13 flight.’” Hernandez v. Sessions, 872 F.3d 976, 982 (9th Cir. 2017) (citing In re Guerra, 24
14 I. & N. Dec. 37, 38 (BIA 2006)). “Section 1226(a), therefore, establishes a discretionary
15 detention framework.” Otilio B.F. v. Andrews, -- F. Supp. 3d --, 2025 WL 3152480, at *5
16 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 11, 2025) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
17 a. Statutory Interpretation of § 1225(b)(2)
18 “The starting point for our interpretation of a statute is always its language.” Cmty.
19 for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid, 490 U.S. 730, 739 (1989) (citation omitted). “But
20 oftentimes the meaning—or ambiguity—of certain words or phrases may only become
21 evident when placed in context.” King v. Burwell, 576 U.S. 473, 486 (2015) (internal
22 quotation marks and citation omitted). In doing so, “a court ‘must interpret the statute as a
23 whole, giving effect to each word and making every effort not to interpret a provision in a
24 manner that renders other provisions of the same statute inconsistent, meaningless or
25 superfluous.’” Shulman v. Kaplan, 58 F.4th 404, 410–11 (9th Cir. 2023) (citation omitted).
26 i. Plain Meaning of § 1225(b)(2)
27
1 The parties dispute whether § 1225(b)(2) applies to Petitioner. Section 1225(b)(2)
2 provides, in pertinent part, “in the case of an alien who is an applicant for admission, if the
3 examining officer determines that an alien seeking admission is not clearly and beyond a
4 doubt entitled to be admitted, the alien shall be detained . . . .” 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)
5 (emphasis added). Respondents maintain that Petitioner is subject to mandatory detention
6 under § 1225(b)(2) as an “applicant for admission.” ECF No. 3, at 10-13. Petitioner
7 contends § 1225(b)(2) only applies to an alien who is “encountered at or near the border”
8 and not to someone who entered years ago. ECF No. 1, ¶¶ 20, 40.
9 The term “seeking admission” is not defined under Section 1225. As many cases in
10 this District and this Circuit have found, “seeking admission” is best understood to require
11 “an affirmative act such as entering the United States or applying for status.” See Mosqueda
12 v. Noem, No. 25-CV-2304 CAS (BFM), 2025 WL 2591530, at *5 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 8, 2025);
13 see also Esquivel-Ipina v. LaRose, No. 25-CV-2672 JLS (BLM), 2025 WL 2998361, at *5
14 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 24, 2025); Rodriguez v. Bostock, No. 3:25-CV-05240-TMC, 2025 WL
15 2782499, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 30, 2025) (“Every district court to address this question
16 has concluded that the government's position belies the statutory text of the INA, canons
17 of statutory interpretation, legislative history, and longstanding agency practice.”). Here,
18 Petitioner was not “seeking admission” within this interpretation. He was arrested in the
19 interior of the United States, not while presenting himself at the gate of entry to attempt to
20 apply for admission.
21 ii. Government's Longstanding Practice
22 The Court’s interpretation is further supported by the enforcement agency’s past
23 interpretation of §§ 1225(b) and 1226. Prior to enactment of the Illegal Immigration
24 Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (“IIRIRA”) governing expedited and
25 regular removal proceedings, handling of asylum claims, and other activities involving the
26 apprehension, detention, hearing of claims and ultimately the removal of inadmissible and
27
1 deportable aliens, the term “seeking admission” was confined to aliens arriving at the port
2 of entry under the prior § 1225. See Matter of Yajure Hurtado, 29 I. & N. Dec. 216, 223
3 (BIA 2025). After the IIRIRA was enacted, DHS’s predecessor agency, the U.S.
4 Immigration and Naturalization Service (“INS”), “detained arriving aliens” under §
5 1225(b), but “[n]oncitizens who were present without admission were detained under the
6 discretionary rules of 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a).” Inspection and Expedited Removal of Aliens;
7 Detention and Removal of Aliens; Conduct of Removal Proceedings; Asylum Procedures,
8 62 Fed. Reg. 10312-01, 10323, 1997 WL 93131 (Mar. 6, 1997) (“Despite being applicants
9 for admission, aliens who are present without having been admitted or paroled (formerly
10 referred to as aliens who entered without inspection) will be eligible for bond and bond
11 redetermination.”)). In arriving at this application, the INS did not find it necessary to
12 interpret “seeking admission.”
13 This longstanding practice from 1997 through 2025 requires the Court to afford due
14 respect to Executive Branch interpretations of §§ 1225(b) and 1226(a). See Edwards’
15 Lessee v. Darby, 25 U.S. 206, 210 (1827) (“In the construction of a doubtful and ambiguous
16 law, the contemporaneous construction of those who were called upon to act under the law,
17 and were appointed to carry its provisions into effect, is entitled to very great respect.”).3
18
19
20
3 Hurtado noted that respect for this longstanding practice initiated by INS in 1997 was unwarranted
21 because the policy only applies to a “doubtful and ambiguous law” and finding that the INA text is clear
and not ambiguous. Matter of Yajure Hurtado, 29 I. & N. Dec. 216, 226 (BIA 2025). Yet the panel
22 acknowledged that the issue of statutory construction of the INA is complicated by a patchwork of statutes
implemented at different times and intended to address different issues. Id. at 227. Here, both sides claim
23
that the statute is plain and that their interpretation is the reasonable one. Yet interpretation of § 1225(b)(2)
24 is complicated due to the complex set of legal provisions and the term “seeking admission” is surrounded
by enough ambiguity that giving weight to the “longstanding” application of this interpretation is
25 warranted. The Court also takes into account the congressional failure to revise or repeal the agency’s
interpretation. See N.L.R.B. v. Bell Aerospace Co. Div. of Textron Inc., 416 U.S. 267, 274-75 (1974).
26 Congress would have had the opportunity to do so when it enacted the Laken Riley Act which created the
§ 1226(c) mandatory detention provisions for certain criminal aliens.
27
1 The U.S. Supreme Court in Loper Bright Enters. v. Raimondo observed that “[s]uch respect
2 was thought especially warranted when an Executive Branch interpretation was issued
3 roughly contemporaneously with enactment of the statute and remained consistent over
4 time.” 603 U.S. 369, 386 (2024). That is because “the longstanding ‘practice of the
5 government, [ ] can inform [a court’s] determination of ‘what the law is[.]’” NLRB v. Noel
6 Canning, 573 U.S. 513, 525 (2014) (first quoting McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316,
7 401 (1819); then quoting Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 177 (1803)).
8 On July 10, 2025, a U.S. Customs and Border Protection Memorandum was issued
9 titled “Detention of Applicants for Admission.” See https://www.cbp.gov/document/foia-
10 record/detention-applicants-admission. The Memorandum indicated that DHS, in
11 coordination with the DOJ, “revisited its legal position” on the INA and determined that §
12 1225, rather than § 1226, is the applicable immigration authority for an “applicant for
13 admission” including an alien present in the U.S. “who has not been admitted . . . whether
14 or not at a designated port of arrival.” Id. It stated that “it is the position of DHS that
15 applicants for admission are subject to mandatory detention under INA § 235(b) and may
16 not be released from DHS custody except by INA § 212(d)(5) parole.” Id. The
17 Memorandum further provides that for custody purposes, “these aliens are now treated in
18 the same manner that ‘arriving aliens’ have historically been treated. The only aliens
19 eligible for a custody determination and release on recognizance, bond, or condition parole
20 under INA § 236(a) are aliens admitted to the United States and chargeable with
21 deportability under INA § 237, with the exception of those subject to mandatory detention
22 under INA § 236(c).” Id. This new legal position was provided to ICE employees in an
23 “Interim Guidance Regarding Detention Authority for Applicants for Admission.” See
24 Bethancourt Soto v. Soto, --F. Supp. 3d--, 2025 WL 2976572, at *2 n.1 (D.N.J. Oct. 22,
25 2025) (quoting Vasquez v. Feeley, --F. Supp. 3d--, 2025 2676082, at *5 n.2 (D. Nev. Sept.
26 17, 2025)).
27
1 The Memorandum does not address the “seeking admission” language that is at core
2 of the dispute, nor did it justify the changed position given the prior longstanding
3 application of the statute. In fact, the Government has acknowledged in other recent cases
4 that prior to the issuance of the July 10, 2025 Memorandum, a non-citizen who had lived
5 here at the time of the detention would have been eligible for a bond hearing. See generally
6 Zumba v. Bondi, Civ. No. 25-cv-14626 (KSH), 2025 WL 2753496, at *4 (D.N.J. Sept. 26,
7 2025) (“Respondents readily admit that if petitioner had been arrested on the basis of her
8 inadmissibility prior to July 8, 2025, she would have been discretionarily detained under 8
9 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and eligible for a bond hearing.”). As a result, it is surprising that the
10 Respondents now contend that the plain and unambiguous language of § 1225 supports a
11 mandatory detention interpretation which means that the Government has been
12 misapplying a mandatory provision for nearly 30 years.
13 Given the Government’s longstanding interpretation of §§ 1225(b) and 1226(a), the
14 Court is further persuaded that “seeking admission” applies to arriving aliens and not aliens
15 who have entered without inspection and lived in the United States for years.
16 iii. Statutory Canons of Interpretation
17 In addition, Respondents’ new interpretation of § 1225(b)(1) “violates the rule
18 against surplusage and negates the plain meaning of the text.” Quijada Cordoba v. Knight,
19 --F. Supp. 3d--, 2025 WL 3228945, at *6 (D. Id. Nov. 19, 2025) (citations omitted). First,
20 “Respondents’ interpretation of ‘seeking admission’ as used in the mandatory detention
21 provision of Section 1225(b)(2)(A) would seemingly render that phrase mere surplusage,
22 such that the language could be deleted while retaining the same statutory meaning.” Lopez
23 v. Warden, Otay Mesa Det. Ctr., No. 25-CV-2527-RSH-SBC, 2025 WL 3005346, at *3
24 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 27, 2025). This interpretation runs counter to the interpretative canon that
25 effect should be given to all statutory provisions. Therefore, the more apt interpretation in
26
27
1 alignment with the canon must, instead, account for “seeking admission” as an additional
2 requirement to those identified as “applicants for admission.”
3 Second, Respondents’ interpretation blurs the lines between § 1225(b) and §
4 1226(a). As made clear in Jennings, “U.S. immigration law authorizes the government to
5 detain certain aliens seeking admission into the country under §§ 1225(b)(1) and (b)(2). It
6 also authorizes the Government to detain certain aliens already in the country pending the
7 outcome of removal proceedings under §§ 1226(a) and (c).” Jennings, 583 U.S. at 289. The
8 Supreme Court thereby interprets § 1225(b) to apply to “aliens seeking admission to the
9 country,” while § 1226(a) applies to “aliens already in the country.” Jennings, 583 U.S. at
10 289. Here, Petitioner is sensibly characterized as a noncitizen “already in the country”
11 rather than one “seeking admission.” Indeed, “[t]he overwhelming majority of courts to
12 address the issue have agreed that Section 1226(a), rather than the mandatory detention
13 provision of Section 1225(b)(2)(A), applies to a noncitizen in Petitioner's position who has
14 resided in the United States for many years.” Lopez, 2025 WL 3005346, at *4 (citations
15 omitted).
16 Third, § 1226 already provides an exception to its rule that the Attorney General
17 may set bond or release an alien on conditional parole, specifically under subsection (c).
18 Enacted by the Laken Riley Act, Pub. L. No. 119-1, 139 Stat. 3 (2025), § 1226(c)(1)(E)
19 requires mandatory detention for people who are inadmissible under §§ 1182(a)(6)(A),
20 (6)(C), or (7) and charged with certain crimes. 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c)(1)(E). Beyond the fact
21 that Petitioner doesn’t satisfy these requirements, “Respondents’ interpretation of Section
22 1225(b)(2)(A) would seemingly render the foregoing language from Section 1226(c) a
23 nullity.” Lopez, 2025 WL 3005346, at *4 (citations omitted). Specifically, “if § 1225(b)(2)
24 already encompassed all inadmissible noncitizens, there would be no need to pass an
25 amendment that required detention for those who are inadmissible under the same statutes
26 and are being charged with specific crimes.” Medina-Ortiz v. Noem, No. 25-cv-02819-
27
1 |}, DMS-MMBP, at *5 (S.D. Cal Oct. 30, 2025). Such an “interpretation would render the
2 || Laken Riley Act, ‘superfluous’” and, therefore, should not be accepted. Id.
3 In sum, the Court concludes that Petitioner is not an alien “seeking admission” under
4 ||§ 1225(b)(2) and that an immigration judge retains authority to grant conditions of bail
5 under §1226(a). Accordingly, the Court finds that Petitioner is being unlawfully detained
6 ||under § 1225(b)(2) and is entitled to a bond hearing.*
7 CONCLUSION
8 Based on the reasoning above, the Court GRANTS the petition for writ of habeas
9 corpus pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 2241.
10 The Court ORDERS Respondents to provide Petitioner with a bond hearing under
11 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within seven (7) days of this Order.* Respondents are ORDERED to
12 || FILE a Notice of Compliance within ten days of providing Petitioner with a bond hearing.
13 || The Clerk of Court SHALL enter judgment in Petitioner's favor and close this case.
14 IT IS SO ORDERED.
15
16 || Dated: December 11, 2025 =<

18 United States District Judge
19
20
21
22
23
24 || ——_——
25 |I4 Having reached this conclusion on Petitioner’s first claim for relief, the Court declines to decide the
26 || merits of Petitioner’s due process claim.
17 > To the extent Petitioner seeks immediate release, such request for relief is denied.
14
28 3:25-cv-02970-GPC-DDL

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11221953. Public record. Not legal advice.