Eastern District of Pennsylvania Grants Habeas to Noncitizen Residing in U.S. Since 2023, Rejecting Mandatory Detention Under INA § 1225

The court held that § 1225 applies only to noncitizens actively "seeking admission," a phrase the court construed to mean taking ongoing, affirmative steps to enter the United States, typically at a border or port of entry. Because Jorge-Peralta was not actively seeking admission at the time of his arrest, his detention was governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1226, which generally permits bond hearings.

Jorge-Peralta, a citizen of the Dominican Republic, entered the United States in 2023. Shortly after his arrival, Department of Homeland Security officers detained and released him. He subsequently moved to Philadelphia, where he continued to reside.

On March 16, 2026, DHS detained Jorge-Peralta while he was working delivering food. He was held at the Federal Detention Center in Philadelphia under § 1225, a provision that generally does not permit release on bond.

Jorge-Peralta filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, arguing that his mandatory detention without bond was unlawful. He contended that § 1225 does not apply to him because he is not actively seeking admission to the United States.

The Government opposed the petition, arguing that § 1225 applies to Jorge-Peralta and that his mandatory detention is lawful under that provision. The Government also argued that detention without a bond hearing does not offend due process.

The court rejected the Government's interpretation, noting that § 1225 is titled "Inspection by immigration officers; expedited removal of inadmissible arriving aliens." The statute applies to an alien who is both "an applicant for admission" and "seeking admission."

The court found that the present participle "seeking" connotes ongoing and continuous action. It agreed with prior district court interpretations that "seeking admission" means taking ongoing, affirmative steps to enter the United States.

The court noted that Congress used two distinct terms in the INA: "seeking admission" and "applicant for admission." Accepting the Government's position that these terms are interchangeable would render one phrase entirely meaningless.

The court acknowledged that divided panels of the Fifth and Eighth Circuits had found the Government's interpretation correct. However, it noted these opinions were not binding authority in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and found their reasoning unpersuasive.

The court also rejected the Government's reliance on Matter of Q. Li, a Board of Immigration Appeals decision concluding that § 1225 applies to an applicant for admission arrested and detained without a warrant while arriving in the United States.

The court cited several recent decisions in this District, including Cordero v. Rose and Cajas-Duchimaza v. McShane, which similarly concluded that noncitizens who entered the United States years before arrest were not actively seeking admission.

Because Jorge-Peralta was not actively seeking admission at the time of his arrest, the court held that his detention was governed by § 1226. This section provides that an alien may be arrested and detained pending a decision on removal, but noncitizens detained under it are generally entitled to a bond hearing.

The court further held that Jorge-Peralta’s mandatory detention violated his constitutional due process rights. Applying the balancing test from Mathews v. Eldridge, the court found that his strong liberty interest in being free from mandatory detention outweighed the minimal administrative burden of providing a bond hearing.

The court concluded that Jorge-Peralta’s continued detention under § 1225 was unlawful. It granted his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and ordered his immediate release.