Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

Alvaro Ramirez Moreno, ) CASE NO. 4:26 CV 275

)

Petitioner, ) JUDGE PATRICIA A. GAUGHAN

)

vs. )

)

Robert Lynch, Director of Detroit Field ) Memorandum Opinion and Order

Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs )

Enforcement, et al., )

)

Respondents. )

INTRODUCTION

This matter is before the Court upon Petitioner Alvaro Ramirez Moreno’s Petition for Writ

of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1). Petitioner seeks review of his detention by Immigration and Customs

Enforcement during his removal proceedings. For the reasons that follow, the Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus is GRANTED.

BACKGROUND

Petitioner Alvaro Ramirez Moreno (“Petitioner”) is a native of Mexico. He entered the

United States in 2005 without inspection as an unaccompanied minor and remained in the country

since that time.1 On January 16, 2026, Petitioner was detained by Respondents at his place of

employment in Akron, Ohio. He remains detained at present.

On January 29, 2026, the Cleveland Immigration Court (“Immigration Court”) denied

Petitioner’s request for a custody redetermination, citing lack of jurisdiction. The Immigration

Court’s claimed lack of jurisdiction comes in the wake of a September 5, 2025 Board of

Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision in Matter of Yajure Hurtado, 29 I&N Dec. 216 (BIA 2025),

which proclaimed—for the first time in immigration history—that any person who crossed the

border unlawfully and is later taken into immigration detention is no longer eligible for release on

bond. Before that decision, the official position of the BIA was that immigration judges had

discretion to grant persons release on bond if the person did not have a disqualifying criminal

record and the judge was satisfied, after a hearing, that the person was not a danger to the

community or a flight risk.

Related, on July 8, 2025, the Immigration Customs and Enforcement Agency (“ICE”) issued

internal “interim guidance,” which changed the agency’s longstanding interpretation of which

noncitizens are eligible for release on bond during removal proceedings. Before July 8, 2025, a

noncitizen in Petitioner’s position would have been subject to detainment pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §

1226, and eligible for release from custody during removal proceedings. After July 8, 2025,

1 Petitioner alleges that he is part of the class in Maldonado Bautista v. Santacruz, No. 5:25-CV-

01873 (C.D. Cal. 2025). Because this Court finds that Petitioner is otherwise entitled to relief, it

need not reach the effect of Maldonado Bautista here.

2

noncitizens in Petitioner’s position are treated as detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1225, which

requires near mandatory detention without affording any bond hearing.2

On February 2, 2026, Petitioner filed the instant petition for a writ of habeas corpus

(“Petition”) against Respondents. Respondents filed a Return of Writ.

DISCUSSION

Petitioner seeks a writ of habeas corpus, arguing that the manner of his continued detention

by Respondents violates both the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and the plain

language of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”). Respondents contend the Petition should

be dismissed because: (1) Petitioner failed to exhaust his administrative remedies; or (2) Petitioner

was properly detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1225, which mandates his detention and does not afford

him a bond hearing.

A. Petitioner Was Not Required To Exhaust His Administrative Remedies

Before reaching the merits of the Petition, this Court must address whether the Petition

should be dismissed, as Respondents contend, because Petitioner did not exhaust available

administrative remedies. Petitioner did timely appeal the Immigration Court’s decision to the BIA

but argues that requiring Petitioner to wait for the conclusion of that appeal before seeking habeas

relief would be futile. This Court agrees with Petitioner.

Where, as here, no applicable statute or rule mandates administrative exhaustion, the

decision whether to require exhaustion is within the district court’s “sound judicial discretion.”

2 The Department of Homeland security retains authority to, in its discretion, exercise its parole

authority to temporarily release persons detained “on a case-by-case basis for urgent humanitarian

reasons or significant public benefit.”. 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5)(A).

3

Shearson v. Holder, 725 F.3d 588, 593 (6th Cir. 2013) (citation omitted). This discretion is referred

to as “prudential” exhaustion, Island Creek Coal Co. v. Bryan, 937 F.3d 738, 746 (6th Cir. 2019),

and such a court-made exhaustion rule must comply with statutory schemes and congressional

intent. Shearson, 725 F.3d at 593–94.

Notably, the Sixth Circuit has not yet decided whether courts should impose prudential

exhaustion in the context of a noncitizen’s habeas petition for unlawful mandatory detention. See

Pizarro Reyes v. Raycraft, 2025 WL 2609425, at *3 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 9, 2025) (citing Hernandez

v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 2025 WL 2444114, at *8 (N.D. Ohio Aug. 25, 2025)). Without

guidance, the courts in this circuit have largely applied Ninth Circuit precedent but have recached

conflicting results. Compare Lopez-Campos v. Raycraft, 797 F. Supp. 3d 771, 778 (N.D. Ohio

2025) (“Here, all three [Ninth Circuit] factors weigh against requiring exhaustion.”), with Monroy

Villalta v. Greene, 794 F. Supp. 3d 528, 531 (N.D. Ohio 2025) (dismissing petition for failing to

exhaust available administrative remedies).

Under the relevant Ninth Circuit precedent, courts may require prudential exhaustion when:

(1) agency expertise makes agency consideration necessary to generate a proper

record and reach a proper decision;

(2) relaxation of the requirement would encourage the deliberate bypass of the

administrative scheme; and

(3) administrative review is likely to allow the agency to correct its own mistakes

and to preclude the need for judicial review.

Lopez-Campos, 797 F. Supp. 3d at 778 (citing United States v. Cal. Care Corp., 709 F.2d 1241,

1248 (9th Cir. 1983) (citing McGee v. United States, 402 U.S. 479, 484 (1971); McKart v. United

States, 395 U.S. 185, 193–95 (1969))).

4

Applying these factors, this Court finds that all three weigh against requiring exhaustion. In

so finding, this Court joins several other in this circuit that have reached the same conclusion in

analogous cases. E.g., Echavvarria Morales v. Noem, 2026 WL 100583, at *3 (N.D. Ohio Jan. 14,

2026); Lopez-Campos, 797 F. Supp. 3d at 778; Puerto-Hernandez, 2025 WL 3012033, at *7.

First, the issue raised in the Petition is purely legal in nature and does not require the agency

to develop the record. The Petition requires the Court to interpret two statutes (Section 1226(a) and

Section 1225(b)(2)(A)) to determine which applies to Petitioner. Matters of statutory interpretation

belong historically within the province of the courts. Loper Bright Enters. v. Raimondo, 603 U.S.

369, 413 (2024) (“[C]ourts need not and under the [Administrative Procedure Act (APA)] may not

defer to an agency interpretation of the law simply because a statute is ambiguous.”).

Second, there is nothing in the record that suggests that relaxing the exhaustion requirement

here would encourage the deliberate bypass of the administrative scheme. Petitioner raises a

constitutional challenge to his continued detention without a bond hearing. The Sixth Circuit has

previously signaled that such challenges are beyond administrative review. See Sterkaj v. Gonzales,

439 F.3d 273, 279 (6th Cir. 2006) (“[A]n alien’s due process challenge generally does not require

exhaustion (the BIA lacks authority to review constitutional challenges)[.]”); accord Bangura v.

Hansen, 434 F.3d 487, 494 (6th Cir. 2006) (“Exhaustion of administrative remedies may not be

required in cases of non-frivolous constitutional challenges to an agency’s procedures.”).

Third, administrative review is not likely to change Respondents’ view that Section

1225(b)(2)(A) applies to Petitioner. BIA (the reviewing agency), in conjunction with the

Department of Justice, has made clear its interpretation mandating detention of noncitizens like

Petitioner during removal proceedings. Puerto-Hernandez, 2025 WL 3012033, at *7 (“It is simply

5

implausible that the BIA would change its position, regardless of the arguments set forth in this

particular case, thus precluding meaningful review.” (citing See Matter of Yajure Hurtado, 29 I. &

N. Dec. 216, 229 (BIA 2025)).

Further, even if this Court were to find that prudential concerns warranted exhaustion, it

could still choose to waive exhaustion when the “legal question is fit for resolution and delay means

hardship, or when exhaustion would prove futile.” Shalala v. Ill. Council on Long Term Care, Inc.,

529 U.S. 1, 13 (2000) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see also Shearson, 725 F.3d

at 594 (“[T]here are some exceptions to the exhaustion doctrine. For example, exhaustion may not

be required when the administrative remedy ‘does not serve the purposes behind the exhaustion

doctrine[ ],’ if the ‘administrative remedies are inadequate or not efficacious,’ or ‘where pursuit of

administrative remedies would be a futile gesture.’” (citation omitted)).

Here, as discussed above, the legal question is fit for exhaustion and the pursuit of

administrative remedies would almost certainly be a futile gesture. The Petition is just one—of

what the Court can only estimate are thousands—of petitions seeking analogous relief because of

BIA’s and ICE’s recent interpretative shift. Immigration courts across the country are denying bond

hearings for noncitizens like Petitioner, claiming the courts lack jurisdiction under recent BIA

guidance. This Court cannot think of anything more clearly amounting to a “futile gesture” than

requiring Petitioner to spend time appealing the Immigration Court’s decision to deny him a bond

hearing to the very agency that passed down that unequivocal directive. See Matter of Yajure

Hurtado, 29 I. & N. Dec. 216, 229 (BIA 2025) (holding that any individual who has ever entered

the United States unlawfully and was later detained is no longer eligible for bond and is subject to

mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A)). See also Contreras-Lomeli v. Raycraft, 2025 WL

6

2976739, at *4 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 21, 2025) (“Waiver based on futility is appropriate when an

administrative agency ‘has predetermined the disputed issue’ by having a ‘clearly stated position’

that the petitioner is not eligible for the relief sought.” (quoting Cooper v. Zych, 2009 WL 2711957,

at *2 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 25, 2009))); Barco Mercado v. Francis, 2025 WL 3295903, at *12

(S.D.N.Y. Nov. 26, 2025) (“To force [Petitioner] to request a bond hearing from an immigration

judge—which would be denied under the BIA’s recent decision and, even if it were held, would

result in release being denied under that decision—and then appeal that denial to the same BIA that

has prevented immigration judges from hearing bond requests in the first place, all before allowing

[Petitioner] to seek judicial review [of his detention]. . . would be ‘Kafkaesque.’”).

Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, this Court concludes that prudential exhaustion is

not required here.

B. Petitioner Is Not Subject to Detention Under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)

Finally, turning to the merits of the Petition, this case concerns the applicability of the

detention provisions at 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). Respondents insist that

Petitioner is subject to mandatory detention under Section 1225(b)(2), while Petitioner contends his

detention is subject to Section 1226(a), which allows for discretionary release on bond.

This Court is hardly the first to address this issue. See Barco Mercado, 2025 WL 3295903,

at *13 (listing 350 decisions that found for the habeas petitioner as of the date of that opinion).

Notably, however, neither the Sixth Circuit nor the Supreme Court have directly reached whether

Section 1226(a) or 1225(b)(2) applies to noncitizens like Petitioner, who entered the United States

7

undetected and have remained present here for several years.3 Absent any such controlling

precedent, this Court joins the clear majority of courts across the county in finding that Section

1226(a) applies to Petitioner—not Section 1225(b)(2).

First and foremost, Respondents’ interpretation stands in contrast to 8 U.S.C. § 1225’s plain

text. See Jimenez v. Quarterman, 555 U.S. 113, 118 (2009) (“As with any question of statutory

interpretation, our analysis begins with the plain language of the statute.”). Section 1225(a)(1)

defines an “applicant for admission” to the United States as “[a]n alien present in the United States

who has not been admitted or who arrives in the United States.” Section 1225(b)(2)(A) then

provides 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.” In other words, to trigger mandatory detention under Section 1225(b)(2)(A), three things

must be true: the alien must be: (1) “an applicant for admission,” (2) “seeking admission,” and (3)

“not clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted.” Kashranov v. Jamison, 2025 WL

3188399, at *6 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 14, 2025).

Here, Respondents insist that all “applicants for admission” are also “seeking admission” for

purposes of mandatory detention under Section 1225(b)(2). This interpretation, however, renders

3 This Court is aware of only two circuit courts that have reached this issue. Compare Castanon-

Nava v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 161 F.4th 1048, 1061 (7th Cir. 2025) (preliminary ruling)

(finding that analogous plaintiffs likely had the “better argument”—that section 1226(a) applies—

“[b]ased upon the text and structure of the two provisions”), with Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi,

2026 WL 323330, at *12 (5th Cir. Feb. 6, 2026) (holding analogous petitioners were subject to

detention under Section 1225(b)(2)). But see Buenrostro-Mendez, 2026 WL 323330, at *10

(Douglas, J., dissenting).

8

the term “seeking admission” entirely superfluous of “applicant for admission,” circumventing the

cardinal principle of statutory construction that instructs courts to give effect, if possible, to every

clause and word of a statute. See United States ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Res., Inc., 599 U.S.

419, 432 (2023) (“[E]very clause and word of a statute should have meaning.”); see also Sumba v.

Crowley, 2025 WL 3126512, at *4 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 9, 2025) (“[T]he [c]ourt rejects as implausible

the government’s contention that two distinct terms in the same subparagraph—‘applicant for

admission’ and ‘an alien seeking admission’—somehow bear the same meaning even though they

are (obviously) different terms.” (emphasis in original)).

Further, “applicant for admission” is a term of art, specifically defined by Congress—

“seeking admission” is not. Respondents’ attempt to equate a defined term of art with the everyday

meaning of “seeking admission” because the terms share a word misses the mark. Digital Realty

Tr., Inc. v. Somers, 583 U.S. 149, 160 (2018) (“When a statute includes an explicit definition, we

must follow that definition, even if it varies from a term’s ordinary meaning.” (quotations and

citation omitted)); see also Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, 2026 WL 323330, at *12 (5th Cir. Feb. 6,

2026) (Douglas, J., dissenting) (“Congress may . . . define a word or phrase [like ‘admission’] in a

specialized way” but “absent such [a definition], those whose lives are governed by law are entitled

to rely on its ordinary meaning, not left to speculate about hidden messages.” (citing Feliciano v.

Dep’t of Transp., 605 U.S. 38, 45 (2025))).

“Seeking” “implies action[.]” Lopez-Campos, 2025 WL 2496379, at *6. “Seeking” requires

something more than just passively being present in the United States. See Francisco T. v. Bondi,

2025 WL 3490809, at *5 (D. Minn. Sept. 5, 2025) (“[I]n general, a present participle is used to

signal present and continuing action.” (quoting Westchester Gen. Hosp., Inc. v. Evanston Ins. Co.,

9

48 F.4th 1298, 1307 (11th Cir. 2022))). As such, Respondents’ interpretation also fails to give effect

to Congress’ choice to use the active term “seeking” in describing those immigrants covered by

Section 1225(b)(2). See Carr v. United States, 560 U.S. 438, 448 (2010) (“Consistent with normal

usage, we have frequently looked to Congress’ choice of verb tense to ascertain a statute’s temporal

reach.”).

Respondents’ interpretation would also render Section 1226(a)’s recent amendment (the

Laken Riley Act. Pub. L. No. 119-1, § 2, 139 Stat. 3, 3 (2025)), superfluous. Chavez v. Dir. of

Detroit Field Office, 2025 WL 3187080, at *7 (N.D. Ohio Nov. 14, 2025) (“If, as the government

argues, § 1226(a) only applied to admitted immigrants, Congress would not have had to carve out

certain unadmitted immigrants using the Laken Riley Act. Further, if, as the government argues, §

1225(b)(2) mandates detention of all unadmitted immigrants, then it would be pointless for

Congress to mandate the detention of a subset of those unadmitted immigrants using the Laken

Riley Act.”).

In response, Respondents offer only that “redundancies are common in statutory drafting”

and “[t]he statutory language of 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c)—including the most recent amendment

pursuant to the Laken Riley Act, see 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c)(1)(E), merely reflects a ‘congressional

effort to be doubly sure’ that certain aliens are detained.” (Doc. 3, at 30 citing Barton v. Barr, 590

U.S. 222, 239 (2020).) But where Respondents’ interpretation requires the Court to overlook

redundancies that make a recent amendment superfluous, Petitioner’s interpretation plainly gives

effect to each provision. “[As]the Supreme Court reminds us, if an interpretation of one provision

‘would render another provision superfluous, courts presume that interpretation is incorrect.’”

Castanon-Nava v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 161 F.4th 1048, 1062 (7th Cir. 2025) (preliminary

10

ruling) (quoting Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 607–08 (2010). “[T]his presumption is ‘strongest

when an interpretation would render superfluous another part of the same statutory scheme,’ as

would be the case here.” Id. (quoting Marx v. Gen. Rev. Corp., 568 U.S. 371, 386 (2013)); see also

Henderson v. United States, 568 U.S. 266, 281 (2013) (Scalia, J., dissenting) (“A rudimentary

principle of textual interpretation—so commonsensical that it scarcely needs citation—is that if one

interpretation of an ambiguous provision causes it to serve a purpose consistent with the entire text,

and the other interpretation renders it pointless, the former prevails.”).

If the plain text of the statute and its structure were not enough, Respondents’ interpretation

also ignores the Supreme Court’s pronouncement in Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281, 289

(2018). In Jennings, the Supreme Court analyzed both Section 1226 and 1225(b), noting that

Section 1225(b) “applies primarily to aliens seeking entry into the United States” and that Section

1226 “applies to aliens already present in the United States.” Id. (“U.S. immigration law authorizes

the Government to detain certain aliens seeking admission into the country under §§ 1225(b)(1) and

(b)(2). It also authorizes the Government to detain certain aliens already in the country pending the

outcome of removal proceedings under §§ 1226(a) and (c).”).

Lastly, Respondents’ interpretation “disregards more than half a century of precedent

enshrining into law the heightened protections applicable to noncitizens already living within our

borders.” Rivero v. Mina, 2026 WL 199319, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 26, 2026) (citing Leng May Ma v.

Barber, 357 U.S. 185, 187 (1958) (“[O]ur immigration laws have long made a distinction between

those aliens who have come to our shores seeking admission . . . and those who are within the

United States after an entry, irrespective of its legality.”)); see also Rodriguez v. Bostock, 779 F.

Supp. 3d 1239, 1260 (W.D. Wash. 2025) (explaining how the legislative history behind Section

11

1226 indicates that the statute applies to noncitizens that “reside in the United States but previously

entered without inspection”).

In the end, Respondents’ interpretation seems best understood as a disagreement with

certain bedrock principles of immigration law. Respondents may very well find that the

immigration statutes, as they stand, lead to results that are incompatible with Respondents’ desired

outcome.4 Unfortunately for Respondents, this Court is bound to apply the statutes as they are

written—not as Respondents wish they were written. Loper Bright Enters., 603 U.S. at 403

(“Courts interpret statutes, no matter the context, based on the traditional tools of statutory

construction, not individual policy preferences.”). The proper mechanism for Respondents to align

these statutes with their objectives is through Congress—not through unilateral administrative

interpretations of the laws.

Accordingly, for all the aforementioned reasons, this Court joins the clear majority of courts

across the country that have refused to read words out of the statute, ignore superfluous language,

downplay Supreme Court dicta, and disregard long-standing principles of immigration law, just to

4 While Respondents seem to view the unequal treatment between noncitizens inspected at the

border and noncitizens who have already effected an unauthorized entry as incompatible with

immigration jurisprudence, this distinction does have support in the historical application of

immigration law: “(1) bond has always been available to detained noncitizens already present in the

United States; (2) as this practice exemplifies, government intrusions have always been tolerated at

the border that would be intolerable in the interior, for the obvious reason that citizens and

noncitizens alike expect to be able to go about their business without having to show that they are

‘clearly and beyond doubt entitled to be admitted’ if taken, or mistaken, for an otherwise

inadmissible noncitizen; and (3) with only a little imagination, the government’s and the majority’s

reading means that anyone present in this country at any time must carry the precise kinds of

identification they would otherwise have only carried to the border for international travel, lest they

be mistaken for an inadmissible noncitizen ‘seeking admission’ into the country.” Buenrostro-

Mendez, 2026 WL 323330, at *18 (Douglas, J., dissenting).

12

align the statutes with Respondents’ policy preferences. Petitioner is subject to detention under 8

U.S.C. § 1226(a)—not 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b). As such, Petitioner’s continued detention without a

bond hearing is unlawful and he is entitled to habeas relief.

CONCLUSION

For all the aforementioned reasons, Alvaro Ramirez Moreno’s Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus is GRANTED. By 5:00 p.m. on Friday, February 27, 2026, Respondents shall either afford

Petitioner the statutory process required under Section 1226(a), which includes a bond hearing, or

release him from custody.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

PATRICIA A. GAUGHAN

United States District Judge

Date: 2/23/26

13