Background
Juan Jose Rivera, a native of El Salvador, entered the United States without inspection or authorization in 2005 and lived and worked in the country for approximately 20 years. He had never been arrested or charged with a crime when ICE detained him near his Washington, D.C., home in October 2025 and initiated removal proceedings.
Following a July 2025 change in the federal government’s interpretation of immigration law, ICE detained Rivera under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A), which the government maintained required detention without a bond hearing. Rivera petitioned for habeas relief, arguing that his detention instead was governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), which permits release on bond. The district court agreed and ordered a bond hearing; an immigration judge found Rivera neither dangerous nor a flight risk and released him on bond. The government appealed, and Rivera’s case was consolidated with Oscar Enrique Lopez Garcia’s similar appeal.
The Court’s Holding
In a published 2-1 decision, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the grants of habeas relief. The majority held that Section 1226, rather than Section 1225, governs the detention of noncitizens such as Rivera and Lopez Garcia who entered without inspection but had been living inside the United States for years when immigration authorities arrested them. They therefore were eligible for bond hearings while their removal proceedings remained pending.
The majority concluded that this interpretation best fit the INA’s text, structure, context, purpose, implementing regulations, and longstanding application. It reasoned that the government’s contrary interpretation would make parts of the statutory scheme ineffective, conflict with later amendments, and raise serious constitutional concerns. The court clarified, however, that at a Section 1226(a) bond hearing the detained noncitizen—not the government—bears the burden of showing that he is neither dangerous nor a flight risk. Judge Rushing dissented, concluding that Section 1225(b)(2)(A) required detention without bond because Rivera had never been lawfully admitted.
Key Takeaways
- Section 1226(a) governs detention for noncitizens arrested inside the United States after living here for years, even if they originally entered without inspection or authorization.
- Those noncitizens are eligible for individualized bond hearings rather than mandatory detention under Section 1225(b)(2)(A).
- At the bond hearing, the noncitizen bears the burden of establishing that he is not a danger to the community or a flight risk.
Why It Matters
The ruling rejects the federal government’s July 2025 interpretation that all noncitizens who entered without inspection must remain detained without bond throughout removal proceedings. Within the Fourth Circuit, longtime residents arrested in the interior under circumstances like Rivera’s may seek release through Section 1226(a) bond proceedings.
The decision also places the Fourth Circuit with the majority of circuits identified by the court as rejecting the government’s interpretation, while acknowledging an active circuit split over the reach of Sections 1225 and 1226.