Background
José Arnulfo Guerrero Orellana, a Salvadoran national, entered the United States without inspection, admission, or parole and had lived in the country since 2013. Immigration and Customs Enforcement arrested him during a vehicle stop in Massachusetts in September 2025, placed him in removal proceedings, and detained him without access to a bond hearing.
His detention followed a July 2025 Department of Homeland Security policy that treated all noncitizens present after entering without inspection as subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b). Guerrero Orellana filed a habeas petition on behalf of himself and a class of similarly situated noncitizens. The district court ordered the government to release him or provide a bond hearing, later held that the class was governed by § 1226(a), and entered partial summary judgment for the class. Guerrero Orellana received a hearing and was released on a $3,500 bond while his removal proceedings remained pending.
The Court’s Holding
The First Circuit affirmed, holding that Guerrero Orellana and the class were detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), which permits release on bond or conditional parole, rather than under § 1225(b)(2)(A), which requires detention for certain noncitizens seeking admission. The court therefore upheld the order requiring the government to release Guerrero Orellana or provide him a bond hearing.
The majority reasoned that although people present in the United States without having been admitted are statutorily deemed “applicants for admission,” § 1225(b)(2)(A) separately applies when an immigration officer evaluates a noncitizen “seeking admission.” Because “admission” means lawful entry after inspection and authorization, Guerrero Orellana and the class were not seeking admission: they had already entered the country unlawfully. Judge Dunlap dissented, concluding that the statutory scheme treats applicants for admission as seeking admission and therefore subjects them to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A).
Key Takeaways
- Noncitizens who already entered the United States without inspection are not “seeking admission” within the meaning of § 1225(b)(2)(A), even though the INA deems them applicants for admission.
- The covered class is detained under § 1226(a) and may seek release through a bond hearing, unless another mandatory-detention provision applies.
- The First Circuit rejected DHS’s 2025 policy of applying § 1225(b) mandatory detention to all noncitizens who entered without inspection.
Why It Matters
The ruling preserves access to bond consideration for the covered class of noncitizens arrested in Massachusetts or within the jurisdiction of a Massachusetts immigration court after previously entering without inspection. It prevents the government from denying those individuals bond hearings solely by classifying them as applicants for admission under § 1225.
The divided decision also highlights a consequential dispute over how the INA divides detention authority between §§ 1225 and 1226, with major practical implications for noncitizens detained while ordinary removal proceedings are pending.