CORTES-MEZA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

JOHNSTOWN

SERGIO CORTES-MEZA,

Petitioner, Civil Action No. 3:25-cv-492

v. Richard A. Lanzillo

Chief United States Magistrate Judge

MEMORANDUM OPINION ON

LEONARD ODDO, et al, PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS

CORPUS

RE: ECF No. 1

Respondents

I. Introduction

Pending before the Court is the petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by

Petitioner Sergio Cortes-Meza (“Petitioner”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. For the

following reasons, Petitioner’s petition will be denied.

II. Background

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Mexico, illegally entered the United States

at some point in 2001. ECF No. 1-2 at p. 33. On January 28, 2025, Petitioner was

arrested in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and issued a Notice to Appear charging that

he was subject to removal under Section 212(a)(6)(A)(i) of the Immigration and

Nationality Act (“INA”). ECF No. 8-1 at p. 1.

On March 26, 2025, Petitioner received a bond hearing before an Immigration

Judge (IJ). ECF No. 1 ¶ 28. The judge denied bond after concluding that Petitioner

posed a “‘risk of flight’ due to his only stated relief from removal being a motion to

suppress the illegally obtained evidence of alienage.” Id.

On January 8, 2026, an Immigration Judge entered an order finding that

Petitioner was removable as charged in the Notice to Appear and directing his

removal to Mexico. ECF No. 8-2 at p. 3. Petitioner filed a timely appeal of that

decision which remains pending with the Board of Immigration Appeals. See ECF

No. 8-3. Consequently, his proceeding is not administratively final and Petitioner

remains in the custody of the Department of Homeland Security at the Moshannon

Valley ICE Processing Center in Philipsburg, Pennsylvania. ECF No. 9 at p. 3.

Petitioner, through counsel, filed the instant Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus on December 8, 2025. ECF No. 1. Respondents filed a Response to the

Petition on February 10, 2026. ECF No. 8. This matter is ripe for adjudication.

III. Discussion

This Court has jurisdiction to hear the merits of the instant case under 28

U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3), which 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[.]” See

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)).

Petitioner asserts that he is entitled to a bond hearing because he is subject to

discretionary detention pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and not mandatory detention

under § 1225(b)(2). Decisions of this Court uniformly support Petitioner’s position.

See, e.g., Calzado Diaz v. Noem, No. 3:25- cv-458, 2025 WL 3628480, at *3-7 (W.D.

Pa. Dec. 15, 2025) (Haines, J.), vacated as moot, Dkt. No. 22 (Dec. 17, 2025)

(explaining that “the general legal conclusions in the Court’s opinion … remain

unchanged.”); Nunez Ramos v. Noem, No. 3:25-CV-00387, 2025 WL 3687335, at *4

(W.D. Pa. Dec. 19, 2025) (Brown, M.J.); Vasquez Mejia v. Noem, No. 3:25-CV-00333,

2025 WL 3546427, at *4 (W.D. Pa. Dec. 11, 2025) (Brown, M.J.); Ico Coc v. Warden

Leonard Oddo, No. 3:25-CV-00381, 2025 WL 3753965 (W.D. Pa. Dec. 29, 2025)

(Taylor, M.J.); Silva Cova v. Rose, No. 3:26-cv-101 (W.D. Pa.), Feb. 11, 2026, Memo.

Order (Stickman, J.; ECF No. 9); Cifuentes Alvarez v. Noem, 3:26-cv-73 (ECF No. 10)

(W.D. Pa., Feb. 26, 2026) (Ranjan, J.); see also Aguirre-Guevara v. Oddo, No. 3:26-cv-

70 (W.D. Pa.), Feb. 11, 2026, Memo. Order (Stickman, J.; ECF No. 8)

The foregoing cases hold that Section 1226 applies to aliens who are “already

present in the United States[,]” Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281, 303 (2018),

while the mandatory detention provision of § 1225 governs detention of “applicants

for admission” to the United States. Bethancourt Soto v. Soto, No. 25-CV-16200, 2025

WL 2976572, at *2 (D.N.J. Oct. 22, 2025). Consistent with these decisions, the Court

holds that § 1226(a), rather than the mandatory detention provision of § 1225(b),

applies to aliens, like Petitioner, who are not seeking admission at a port of entry but

rather are already present in the country. In so holding, the Court rejects the

interpretation adopted by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in Avila v. Bondi, 170

F.4th 1128 (8th Cir. 2026) (holding that Ҥ 1225(b)(2)(A) mandates the detention of

unadmitted aliens already present inside the United States”) and the Fifth Circuit

Court of Appeals in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, 166 F.4th 494 (5th Cir. 2026)

(holding that noncitizen’s status as an applicant for admission does not turn on where

or how the noncitizen entered the United States).

Because Petitioner’s detention is governed by § 1226(a), he has a statutory

right to a bond hearing. In this case, however, Petitioner concedes that he already

had a bond hearing (and was deemed a flight risk) on March 26, 2025. In Borbot v.

Warden Hudson Cnty. Corr. Facility, 906 F.3d 274 (3d Cir. 2018), the Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit considered an argument that, after receiving a bond hearing

that ended unfavorably, a detainee might be entitled to a second bond hearing due to

the ongoing duration of his confinement. Id. at 276. The Court rejected that

challenge, finding no authority “to suggest that duration alone can sustain a due

process challenge by a detainee who has been afforded the process contemplated by §

1226(a) and its implementing regulations.” Id. at 277. The Court acknowledged in

dicta that there might be circumstances under which, “despite an initial bond

hearing, detention under § 1226(a) might become unreasonably prolonged, whether

by virtue of government delay or some other cause.” Id. at 280. However, the Court

declined to decide “when, if ever, the Due Process Clause might entitle an alien

detained under § 1226(a) to a new bond hearing.” Id.

Noting that the detainee in Borbot had been detained for more than two years

at the time the Court issued its decision, courts in this Circuit have generally declined

to order second bond hearings based solely on the duration of a detainee’s

confinement. See, e.g., Viantsko v. Lowe, 2026 WL 963038, at *4 (M.D. Pa. Apr. 9,

2026) (noting that “the plain holding of Borbot demonstrates ‘that [although

Viantsko’s claim] may be available in an extreme case, even a two year detention

period did not in and of itself warrant relief in light of the procedural mechanisms—

including bond appeals and bond redeterminations in the immigration courts—

available to section 1226(a) detainees.’”) (quoting Onuwa v. Field Office Director, 2026

WL 772435, at *2 (D.N.J. Mar. 19, 2026)); Silva v. Warden, FCI Lewisburg, 2026 WL

1747768, at *2 (M.D. Pa. June 17, 2026) (ten-month duration of civil immigration

detention did not entitle detainee detained under § 1226(a) to a second opportunity

to apply for release on bond); White v. Lowe, 2026 WL 777425, at *2 n. 1 (M.D. Pa.

Mar. 19, 2026) (detention for sixteen months following first bond hearing “would

appear to be insufficient” to support a claim for habeas relief “based on unreasonably

prolonged detention after a first bond hearing”).1 The Court reaches the same

conclusion here. The only argument offered in support of Petitioner’s request for a

second hearing is the overall duration of his detainment. See ECF No. 9. As noted

above, duration alone is insufficient to trigger habeas relief under Borbot.

Petitioner’s petition must be denied.

1 In Fadel v. Warden of Moshannon Valley ICE Processing Center, 2026 WL 1649901 (W.D. Pa. June

8, 2026), the court utilized the German Santos factors applicable to prolonged detention under 8

U.S.C. § 1226(c) to determine that a detention period of nine months following an initial bond

hearing was sufficient to warrant a second bond hearing. Id. at *5. The Court relied, in part, on the

fact that the detainee in Fadel had been granted asylum by an Immigration Judge but remained in

detention pending the government’s appeal of that decision. Id. at *4 (noting that “Petitioner should

not be penalized for the fact that he prevailed before the IJ and now remains detained while the

Government pursues appellate review”). This circumstance is not present in the instant case.

IV. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1)

will be DENIED. An appropriate order will follow.

DATED this 20 day of August, 2026.

BY THE COURT:

So

RICHARD A. LANZILLO

CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE