Background
Gabriel Antonio Buele Morocho, an Ecuadorian citizen, and Wanderson Lopes De Andrade, a Brazilian citizen, entered the United States without inspection in 2001 and 2014, respectively. Immigration and Customs Enforcement arrested them in late 2025 and early 2026 and detained them without bond under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A).
The Government’s reliance on that provision reflected a 2025 enforcement shift. Noncitizens who had entered without inspection and lived in the United States for years had previously been detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), which permits release on bond when the person is neither dangerous nor a flight risk. The petitioners sought habeas relief, and two district courts ordered their release after concluding that § 1225(b)(2)(A) did not govern their detention; the court addressing Lopes De Andrade also found a Fifth Amendment violation.
The Court’s Holding
The Third Circuit affirmed. The majority held that § 1225(b)(2)(A) applies only when a noncitizen is both an “applicant for admission” and presently “seeking admission.” Although the petitioners qualified as applicants for admission because they were present without having been lawfully admitted, they were not seeking admission: they had lived inside the country for years and were taking no ongoing affirmative action to obtain lawful entry.
The court reasoned that treating every applicant for admission as necessarily seeking admission would erase distinct statutory language. It also concluded that the INA’s broader structure assigns arriving noncitizens to § 1225 while generally addressing people apprehended in the country’s interior under § 1226. Because the Government placed the petitioners in mandatory detention under an inapplicable statute and denied them bond procedures, their detention violated the INA and due process.
Key Takeaways
- A noncitizen’s statutory status as an “applicant for admission” does not automatically mean that the person is currently “seeking admission” under § 1225(b)(2)(A).
- Longtime residents apprehended in the interior after entering without inspection cannot be subjected to § 1225(b)(2)(A)’s mandatory no-bond detention merely because they were never formally admitted.
- The Third Circuit affirmed the habeas orders releasing both petitioners, joining the majority of circuits to have rejected the Government’s expanded interpretation of § 1225(b)(2)(A).
Why It Matters
The precedential decision limits the Government’s ability within the Third Circuit to use § 1225(b)(2)(A) to detain without bond noncitizens who entered without inspection but have lived in the United States for years. Its textual distinction between being deemed an applicant for admission and actively seeking admission preserves access to the detention framework that allows individualized release decisions.
The ruling also deepens an acknowledged circuit split over the Government’s 2025 detention policy. Judge Mascott dissented, concluding that the INA required detention and that the petitioners had not established a procedural or substantive due-process violation.