GULYER

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

SERKAN GULYER, )

Petitioner, Civil Action No. 25-482]

Vv. District Judge Stephanie L. Haines

) Magistrate Judge Maureen P. Kelly

WARDEN OF THE MOSHANNON )

VALLEY PROCESSING CENTER, ) Re: ECF No. 1

Respondent.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

I. RECOMMENDATION

For the reasons that follow, it is respectfully recommended that the Verified Petition for

Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (the “Petition”) be conditionally granted. Petitioner

further should be granted a period of time to submit a motion for fees and/or costs, should he wish

to do so. See ECF No. 1 at 18.

II. REPORT

Petitioner Serkan Gulyer (“Petitioner”) is an immigration detainee who currently is held at

the Moshannon Valley Processing Center ““MVPC”) in Phillipsburg, Pennsylvania. Petitioner

submitted the Petition on December 5, 2025. ECF No. 1.

In the Petition, Petitioner challenges his mandatory immigration detention pursuant to

8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A). ECF No. 1 at 2; see also ECF No. 12 at 2. Petitioner asserts that he is

subject to detention pursuant to a different statute — 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) — which would allow him

the possibility of release on bond. ECF No. 1 at 3.

For the reasons that follow, the Petition should be conditionally granted.

A. Relevant Background and Facts

In the Petition, Petitioner alleges that he is a citizen of Turkey. Id. at 1. Petitioner alleges

that he entered the United States on April 6, 2024. Id.; see also ECF No. 12-1 at 3 On April 19,

2024, Petitioner was served a Notice to Appear by immigration authorities charging him with being

removable under INA § 212(a)(6)(A)(i), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)G),! as an alien present in the

United States without having been admitted or paroled, or who arrived in the United States at any

time or place other than as designated by the Attorney General. ECF No. 1-2 at 3. Petitioner then

was released on his own recognizance. ECF No. 12-1 at 3. ©

Petitioner remained at liberty while in immigration proceedings, presumably without

incident, until October 28, 2025, when he was arrested as he appeared for a scheduled check-in at

the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) field office in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Id.

He has been held without bond in immigration detention ever since.

There is no indication on the record that a final order of removal has been entered against

Petitioner.

Respondent answered the Petition on January 5, 2026. ECF No. 12. Respondent argues

that Petitioner is not entitled to a bond hearing under Section 1226(a) because he is an “applicant

for admission,” and thus mandatorily detained pursuant to Section 1225(b)(2). Id. at 2-3 (citing,

inter alia, Matter of Yajure Hurtado, 29 I&N Dec. 216 (BIA 2025)).

Respondent concedes that the legal interpretation rendering Petitioner ineligible for bond

is a recent one, and that prior to July 8, 2025, it was the position of the Department of Homeland

' Rather than citing to the United States Code, and for reasons that are unclear, immigration

officials tend to cite directly to sections of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”). These

citations often do not match up to the United States Code in any discernable fashion. In order to

avoid unnecessary confusion, this Court will provide parallel citations to the United States Code

and the INA where necessary.

Security (“DHS”) and the immigration courts that Petitioner would have been eligible to apply for

discretionary bond pursuant to Section 1226(a). ECF No. 12 at 8-9 and n.5. To her credit,

Respondent’s counsel further concedes that the logic of her argument has been rejected in multiple

opinions issued by judges within the Western District of Pennsylvania. Id. at 2-3 n.1 (collecting

cases).

By way of relief, Petitioner asks for immediate release from immigration detention, or for

a bond hearing at which DHS bears the burden to justify Petitioner’s detention. ECF No. 1 at 3.

The Petition is ripe for consideration.

I. DISCUSSION

28 U.S.C. § 2241 allows a court to grant a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner held “in

violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States[.]” Id. at § 2241(c)(3). This

Court has jurisdiction to hear the merits of the instant case under that statute. Bystron v. Hoover,

456 F. Supp. 3d 635, 640 (M.D. Pa. 2020) (citing Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510 (2003) and

Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001)).

8 U.S.C. § 1226 — the statute that Petitioner argues should apply to his current detention —

states, in pertinent part:

Apprehension and detention of aliens

(a) Arrest, detention, and release

On a warrant issued by the Attorney General, an alien may be

arrested and detained pending a decision on whether the alien is to

be removed from the United States. Except as provided in

subsection (c) and pending such decision, the Attorney General —

(1) may continue to detain the arrested alien; and

(2) may release the alien on —

(A) bond of at least $1,500 with security approved by, and

containing conditions prescribed by, the Attorney General; or

(B) conditional parole; but

(3) may not provide the alien with work authorization (including an

“employment authorized” endorsement or other appropriate work

permit), unless the alien is lawfully admitted for permanent

residence or otherwise would (without regard to removal

proceedings) be provided such authorization.

In contrast, 8 U.S.C. § 1225— the statute that Respondent argues should apply — states, in

pertinent part:

Inspection by immigration officers; expedited removal of

inadmissible arriving aliens; referral for hearing

a) Inspection

(1) Aliens treated as applicants for admission

An alien present in the United States who has not been admitted or

who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port

of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States

after having been interdicted in international or United States

waters) shall be deemed for purposes of this chapter an applicant for

admission.

He os ok ok

(2) Inspection of other aliens

(A) In general

Subject to subparagraphs (B) and (C), 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.

Historically, there would have been no dispute that Petitioner was entitled to a bond hearing

before an immigration judge pursuant Section 1226(a). See ECF No. 12 at 8. However, recent

changes in policy by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”), see

https://www.aila.org/library/ice-memo-interim-guidance-regarding-detention-authority-for-

applications-for-admission (last visited Jan. 7, 2026), and the decision of the Board of Immigration

Appeals essentially ratifying this policy in Hurtado, have 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. See Hurtado, 29

I&N Dec. at 228-29.

The reasoning in Hurtado has been soundly rejected by the overwhelming majority of

district courts that have opined on it. See, e.g., Bethancourt Soto v. Soto, --- F.Supp.3d ----, No.

25-cv-16200, 2025 WL 2976572, at *7 (D.N.J. Oct. 22, 2025) (collecting cases). For the reasons

recently and ably articulated by District Judge Stephanie Haines in Calzado Diaz v. Noem, No.

3:25-cv-458, 2025 WL 3628480 (W.D. Pa. Dec. 15, 2025), the undersigned joins the chorus of

federal judges who have rejected Hurtado.

The crux of Petitioner’s arguments is that his rights are violated because he has been denied

a bond hearing before a neutral arbiter under Section 1226. ECF No. | at 6-9 and 10. Thus, the

undersigned declines to recommend outright release. Instead, because Petitioner’s detention is

governed by Section 1226(a), he has a statutory right to a bond hearing. See Jennings v. Rodriguez,

583 U.S. 281, 306 (2018) (“Federal regulations provide that aliens detained under § 1226(a)

receive bond hearings at the outset of detention.”) (citing 8 C.F.R. §§ 236.1(d)(1), 1236.1(d)(1)).

See also 8 C.F.R. § 1003.19. Accordingly, a hearing before an immigration judge is the proper

forum to determine whether bond is appropriate under that statute and the applicable regulations.

Any other habeas relief requested by Petitioner should be denied.”

* This Report and Recommendation should not be interpreted to recommend foreclosing a

challenge to Petitioner’s detention in the future if it becomes unreasonably prolonged. See German

Santos v. Warden Pike Cnty. Corr. Fac., 965 F.3d 203 (3d Cir. 2020). Nor should it be interpreted

to limit any arguments that Petitioner might make in a forthcoming bond hearing.

A certificate of appealability is not required for federal detainees seeking relief under

Section 2241. Muza v. Werlinger, 415 F. App’x 355, 357 n.1 (3d Cir. 2011). See also 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1). Therefore, it is not necessary to determine whether one should be issued here.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth herein, the Petition, ECF No. 1, should be conditionally granted.

Respondent should be required to provide Petitioner with a substantive bond hearing before

a neutral immigration judge forthwith, and to timely notify the Court of the results of said hearing.

If Respondent fails to do so, the writ should issue, and Petitioner should be released from

immigration custody subject to conditions consistent with applicable law. Petitioner further should

be granted a period of time to submit a motion for fees and/or costs, should he wish to do so. See

ECF No. 1 at 18.

In accordance with the Magistrate Judges Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and Local Rule

72.D.2, the parties are permitted to file written objections in accordance with the schedule

established in the docket entry reflecting the filing of this Report and Recommendation.

Objections are to be submitted to the Clerk of Court, United States District Court, 700 Grant Street,

Room 3110, Pittsburgh, PA 15219. Failure to timely file objections will waive the right to appeal.

Brightwell v. Lehman, 637 F.3d 187, 193 n.7 (3d Cir. 2011).

Any party opposing objections may file their response to the objections within fourteen

days thereafter in accordance with Local Civil Rule 72.D.2.

Dated: January 7. 2026 Respectfully submitted, /

hating LIL, a

MAUREEN P, KBLLY NI

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ce: The Hon. Stephanie L. Haines

United States District Judge

Counsel of record (via CM/ECF)