Background
Jaciel Cirrus Rojas, a Mexican national, entered the United States without inspection in 2018. DHS arrested him in June 2025 under 8 U.S.C. § 1226. An immigration judge found that he was neither a flight risk nor a danger to the community and ordered his release on bond pending removal proceedings.
DHS then invoked new agency guidance and argued that Rojas was instead subject to mandatory detention without bond under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A). The Board of Immigration Appeals adopted that interpretation, and the district court denied Rojas’s habeas petition. Although Rojas was later released after a second bond hearing, DHS purported to cancel his bond, promised to re-detain him if the BIA reversed, and obtained a BIA order vacating the second bond decision.
The Court’s Holding
The Seventh Circuit held that the appeal was not moot. Rojas’s release was only a temporary reprieve because DHS had promised to re-detain him and, after the BIA vacated his second bond order, nothing prevented it from doing so. A favorable habeas judgment therefore could still provide effective relief.
On the merits, the court held that § 1226(a), rather than § 1225(b)(2)(A), governed Rojas’s detention. Although § 1225(a)(1) deems an unadmitted noncitizen an “applicant for admission,” § 1225(b)(2)(A) applies only when that person is also “seeking admission.” Rojas was not seeking admission: he had entered years earlier, and his requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture protection were not requests for statutory “admission.” The INA’s text, structure, history, and longstanding administrative practice confirmed that people present in the interior without admission who are not seeking admission remain eligible for bond hearings under § 1226(a).
The court reversed the denial of habeas relief and remanded with instructions to issue the writ. It emphasized that its holding was limited: bond eligibility does not guarantee release, and the INA’s other detention requirements still apply. Judge Sykes dissented, concluding that Rojas’s statutory status as an applicant for admission placed him within § 1225(b)(2)(A)’s mandatory-detention regime.
Key Takeaways
- An unadmitted noncitizen living in the country’s interior is not subject to § 1225(b)(2)(A) merely because the INA deems that person an “applicant for admission.”
- Section 1225(b)(2)(A) requires that the person also be “seeking admission”; asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture protection do not constitute admission.
- Release from custody did not moot the habeas appeal where DHS had promised re-detention and had obtained an order vacating the petitioner’s bond.
Why It Matters
The decision rejects DHS’s new interpretation that would require detention without bond for unadmitted noncitizens arrested in the country’s interior. Within the Seventh Circuit, people in that category who are not seeking admission are governed by § 1226 and may seek individualized bond hearings, subject to the INA’s other restrictions.
The ruling also deepens an acknowledged circuit split over the reach of § 1225(b)(2)(A), an issue affecting potentially millions of noncitizens and likely requiring Supreme Court resolution.