Freden

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

ANTONIO FONSECA CASTILLO,

Petitioner,

v. 25-CV-06453-MAV

DECISION & ORDER

JOSEPH FREDEN, in his official

capacity as ICE Deputy Field Office

Director,

Respondent.

INTRODUCTION

Petitioner Antonio Fonseca Castillo, a citizen of Mexico, brought this petition

for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on September 3, 2025, after

having been detained by the United States Department of Homeland Security

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) at the Buffalo Federal Detention

Facility “BFDF’) since August 2024. ECF No. 1 { 10. Because Petitioner is detained

under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c), an Immigration Judge held that he did not have jurisdiction

to hold a bond hearing. Jd. { 4. Petitioner maintains that his prolonged detention

without a bond hearing violates his due process rights under the Fifth Amendment

of the Constitution. Jd. 4 5. For the reasons discussed below, the Court finds that

under binding Second Circuit precedent, Petitioner is entitled to a bond hearing.

BACKGROUND

Petitioner is a citizen of Mexico who entered the United States without

inspection in 2006. Jd. § 138. On February 17, 2024, Petitioner was arrested and

charged with Alien Transportation; he was placed into removal proceedings the

following day. Id. { 14-15. See also ECF No. 5-2 at 4 (the Notice to Appear issued to

Petitioner in September 2024 alleging that he was convicted of the offense of

transporting aliens in violation of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1324(a)(1)(A)(@i) and (a)(1)(b)G)). On

August 7, 2024, Petitioner pled guilty to the charges against him, and was sentenced

to time served. Jd. § 16. On August 9, he was transferred to ICE custody and moved

to the BFDF. Id. { 17.

After several appearances before an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) regarding

deficiencies in the original Notice to Appear, the IJ found in March 2025 that

Petitioner was detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c), and therefore that he had no

jurisdiction to hear or grant Petitioner’s application for bond. Id. { 24. On June 26,

2025, the IJ ordered Petitioner removed, and his appeal to the Board of Immigration

Appeals (“BIA”) on the removal order remains pending. Jd. § 26—27. Petitioner also

appealed the IJ’s bond decision, and the BIA denied that appeal on July 25, 2025. Id.

{ 28.

As of the date of the filing of this petition, Petitioner had been detained by ICE

at BFDF for nearly 13 months. ECF No. 1.

JURISDICTION

28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(8) authorizes federal courts to grant habeas relief to

prisoners or detainees who are “in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or

treaties of the United States.” See Wang v. Ashcroft, 320 F.3d 130, 140 (2d Cir. 2003).

Federal courts retain jurisdiction under § 2241 to review purely legal statutory and

constitutional claims regarding the government’s detention authority, but

jurisdiction does not extend to “discretionary judgment,” “action,” or “decision” by the

Attorney General with respect to either detention or removal.! Jennings v. Rodriguez,

583 U.S. 281, 295 (2018) (citing, inter alia, Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510, 516-17

(2003)). No such discretionary judgments, actions, or decisions are at issue here. See,

e.g., Lieogo v. Freden, No. 6:25-CV-06615 EAW, 2025 WL 3290694, at *2-5 (W.D.N.Y.

Nov. 26, 2025) (rejecting the jurisdictional defenses raised by Respondents regarding

a petition involving similar issues, and explaining why 8 U.S.C. §§ 1252(e)(38),

1252(g), and 1252(b)(9) did not bar the district court’s review of the petition).

DISCUSSION

Petitioner alleges that his continued detention violates, inter alia, his right to

procedural due process under the United States Constitution. See ECF 1 33-46.

He asks the Court for a bond hearing at which the government must show by clear

and convincing evidence that Petitioner is a flight risk and/or a danger to persons or

property. Id. In response, Respondents maintain that Petitioner is not entitled to a

bond hearing because — despite the IJ’s earlier finding that Petitioner is detained

under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) — Petitioner is, “in fact” subject to mandatory detention

pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). ECF No. 4-1 at 2. Respondents therefore ask the

Court to dismiss the petition for failure to state a claim.

1 For instance, 8 U.S.C. § 1226(e) provides that “[t]he Attorney General’s discretionary judgment

regarding the application of this section shall not be subject to review.” Additionally, judicial review

of removal orders is available only through filing a “petition for review” in a Circuit Court pursuant to

8 U.S.C. § 1252.

Thus, to resolve the instant petition, the Court must first determine which

statute governs Petitioner’s detention, and — if it finds detention is governed by

§ 1226(c) — determine whether Petitioner is entitled to a bond hearing.

I. The Statute Governing Petitioner’s Detention

Respondents argue that Petitioner is “in fact” subject to mandatory detention

under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) because he was never lawfully admitted to the United

States, and therefore remains an “applicant for admission” under the statute. The

Court disagrees.

Although the case involved a dispute regarding whether the petitioner was

detained under § 1226(a) or § 1225(b)(2), the Court addressed the substance of

Respondents’ argument regarding § 1225(b)(2) in Da Cunha v. Freden, No. 25-CV-

6532-MAV, 2025 WL 3280575 (W.D.N.Y. Nov. 25, 2025). In Da Cunha, we considered

whether a petitioner who had been present in the country for a period of years, was

not actively seeking lawful entry through inspection by an immigration officer, and

was arrested under a warrant was detained under § 1225(b)(2) or §1226(a).

We prefaced our analysis by reciting the relevant language in the statutes. Da

Cunha, 2025 WL 3280575 at *4. Section 1225(b)(2)(A) states, in pertinent part, that:

in the case of an alien who is an applicant for admission, if the

examining immigration officer determines that an alien seeking

admission is not clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted, the

alien shall be detained for a proceeding under section 1229a of this title

fi.e., removal proceedings].

Among other things, we found that because the petitioner was “already in the

country” and had been for several years, and was arrested on his way to work in

Norwood, Massachusetts rather than while presenting for inspection to an

immigration officer, the government had failed to demonstrate that the petitioner

was “seeking admission” as required by 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A). Da Cunha, 2025 WL

3280575 at *6. Rather, we found that § 1226(a) applied because the petitioner was

arrested on a warrant and was “already in the country... .” Id. (quoting Jennings,

583 U.S. at 289) (emphasis in the original).

Of course, § 1226(a) and § 1226(c) are different in important ways. Most

obviously, whereas the Attorney General is granted discretion under § 1226(a) to

continue to detain an alien arrested under that provision, or to release him on bond,

§ 1226(c) addresses the detention of criminal aliens and mandates that the Attorney

General “shall take into custody” an alien who has committed any of the crimes

identified in § 1226(c)(1). In other words, “§ 1226(c) makes clear that detention of

aliens within its scope [i.e., criminal aliens] must continue ‘pending a decision on

whether the alien is to be removed from the United States.” Jennings v. Rodriguez,

583 U.S. 281, 303 (2018) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1226) (emphasis added).

Nevertheless, the differences between § 1226(a) and § 1226(c) are not material

to resolving the issue as to the statute governing Petitioner’s detention here. To begin

with, the Court finds that Respondents have failed to demonstrate that Petitioner

was “seeking admission” as required under § 1225(b)(2). As in Da Cunha, the

Petitioner in this case had been living in the United States for over a decade at the

time of his detention, and there is no suggestion in the papers that he was arrested

while actively “seeking admission.” See Da Cunha, 2025 WL 3280575 at *4-6.

Furthermore, Respondents’ disagreement with the IJ’s determination that

Petitioner is detained under § 1226(c) is not rooted in any articulated defect in the

IJ’s reasoning, but rather is based upon the premise that Petitioner’s status as an

“applicant for admission” gave Respondents the discretion to detain him under

§ 1225(b)(2). Indeed, neither Petitioner nor Respondents argue in this action that the

IJ’s determination that Petitioner was inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(@)

for committing a crime of moral turpitude was improper.? See ECF No. 5-2 (charging

Petitioner with inadmissibility under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)G)); ECF No. 5-4 (the

BIA affirming the IJ’s finding of inadmissibility under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)Q@)).

Thus, Petitioner clearly falls within the scope of 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c)(1)(A), which

applies to any alien who “is inadmissible by reason of having committed any offense

covered in section 1182(a)(2) of this title.”

In short, because Respondents have failed to demonstrate Petitioner was

“seeking admission” at the time of his detention under § 1225(b)(2), and because the

IJ’s determination that Petitioner was inadmissible under § 1182(a)(2)(A)@) clearly

places Petitioner with the scope of § 1226(c)(1)(A), the Court finds that Petitioner is

detained under § 1226(c).

II. Entitlement to a Bond Hearing

In Jennings v. Rodriguez, the Supreme Court held that the statute does not

require—and in fact prohibits—the government from offering a noncitizen detained

2 Nor is it clear that the parties could so argue in this forum. As noted above, 8 U.S.C. § 1226(e)

provides that “[t]he Attorney General's discretionary judgment regarding the application of this

section shall not be subject to [judicial] review.”

under § 1226(c) the opportunity to challenge the detention at a bond hearing.

Jennings, 583 U.S. at 303. But the High Court declined to decide in that case whether

the Constitution nonetheless requires that noncitizens held under § 1226(c) be

afforded such an opportunity. Jd. at 312.

“In Black v. Decker, 103 F.4th 133 (2d Cir. 2024), the Second Circuit answered

that question, holding that ‘a noncitizen’s constitutional right to due process

precludes... unreasonably prolonged detention under section 1226(c) without a bond

hearing.” J.VM.H. v. Freden, No. 24-CV-875-LJV, 2025 WL 81919, at *5 (W.D.N.Y.

Jan. 13, 2025) (alteration in original) (quoting Black, 103 F.4th at 138). Further, it

held that the three-factor balancing test of Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976),

“supplies the proper framework for determining when and what additional

procedural protections are due such a detainee.” Id. (quoting Black, 103 F.4th at 138).

The Mathews factors require assessment of (1) “the private interest that will be

affected by the official action”; (2) “the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such

interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or

substitute procedural safeguards”; and (8) “the [gjovernment’s interest, including the

function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or

substitute procedural requirement would entail.” Black, 103 F.4th at 151 (quoting

Mathews, 424 U.S. at 335).

Applying these factors to a noncitizen held under section 1226(c), the Second

Circuit held that: (1) the petitioner’s private hberty interests were “seriously

affected” by a seven-month detention, which it described as “prolonged”; (2) there

were “very few” procedures available to noncitizens detained under section 1226(c),

which increased the risk of “erroneous deprivation” to the petitioner’s “private

liberty interests”; and (3) the government’s valid interests in ensuring a noncitizen’s

appearance at removal proceedings and in protecting the community from dangerous

noncitizens could be adequately addressed through “additional procedural

safeguards.” Foster v. Brophy, No. 24-CV-6728-FPG, 2025 WL 8338192, at *1

(W.D.N.Y. Feb. 11, 2025) (quoting Black, 103 F.4th at 151-53).

The Second Circuit concluded that the petitioner was entitled to an

“individualized bond hearing by an [immigration judge].” Black, 103 F.4th at 155.

The Second Circuit also directed that, at the bond hearing, the burden must be placed

on the government to justify continued detention “by clear and convincing evidence”

and, with respect to a detainee’s risk of flight, that the immigration judge must

“consider both [the detainee’s] ability to pay and any alternatives to detention” that

would assure his appearance. Id.

Compared to the petitioner's seven-month detention in Black v. Decker,

Petitioner’s detention here under § 1226(c) is approaching — at the time of this order

— seventeen months. Petitioner is entitled to a bond hearing consistent with binding

Second Circuit precedent. Petitioner’s § 2241 petition for habeas corpus is therefore

granted to that extent, and Respondents’ motion to dismiss is denied.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner is entitled to habeas relief under 28

U.S.C. § 2241 and the petition (ECF No. 1) is GRANTED insofar as Petitioner shall

receainvin ed ividubaolnihdze eadrb ienfogra enI mmgirtaioJund gpeur suatnot

Blcakv D.e ck1e0rF3,. 41t3h(3 2 Cdi 2r0.24 )a;nd i ti sf urther

ORDEREtDh taR espondmeonttitsood'n i smiisds esien da;n d iisft u rther

ORDEREtDh awitt h1i0dn a yfrso mt hdea toeft hsOi rdreR,e sponsdhelanlt s

holad b onhdea rnigfo rP etitbieofonreaern i mmigrajtuidognae tw, h icthh e

governmbeenratst hbeu rdeonfp r ovgi bnyc leaanrdc onvinecviincdgeet nhat

Petiticononteirdn'd usee tenitsji uosnt ibfiaedsdo e nh sip resreinsotkf fl gihotr

dangte otrh cemomuniBteyfo.rt ehi mem igrajtuidomgnae yc oncltuhdadete tention

ijsu stbiafisdeeo dn a r siko ffl igthht ie,m migrjautdimgouens c tos nidPeert itioner's

abiltiopt ayayn da lternmaetainovsfae s surhsiia npgp ear; aannidtci esf urther

ORDEREtDh aitafb odnh eariinsng o hte lwdi tn h10id ayosft hdea toeft his

OrdeRres,opn dnetssh larle lePaestei tiimomendeira wtietalhpy p prroicaotned itions

ofs uperivsi; aonnidti sh ereby

ORDEREtDht aw ith1i 7dna yosft hdea toeft hiOsr deRre,s ponsdehlnalt s

fil ae nocteiw itthh iCso urcte rtitfyhianatg b onhde ariwansgh elbdy t he

applicadbelaed laindtn he oe utctohmeer aendoi tfi ;sfu rther

ORDEREtDh atth C eleorfCk ou ritsd r iecttoeed n tjeurd gmfoerPn ett itioner

ancdl otsheci sase .

SOO RDERED.

Dated:J anua3rD y,2 026

RocheNsetweY ro,r k C��uIVtttv

HON�EREDITHAV.A CCA

UnitSetda tDeiss tJruidcgte