Background
Jaciel Cirrus Rojas, a Mexican national, entered the United States without inspection in 2018. The Department of Homeland Security 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 instead fell under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A), which mandates detention without bond for certain applicants seeking admission. The Board of Immigration Appeals reversed the bond order, and the district court denied Rojas’s habeas petition. Although a second immigration judge later ordered his release, the BIA vacated that order, and DHS stated that it intended to re-detain him.
The Court’s Holding
The Seventh Circuit first held that Rojas’s release did not moot his habeas appeal. DHS had purported to cancel his bond, promised to re-detain him if the BIA reversed the second bond order, and obtained that reversal. The court therefore concluded that Rojas faced an actual injury that a favorable habeas judgment could redress.
On the merits, the court held that § 1225(b)(2)(A) did not govern Rojas’s detention. Although § 1225(a)(1) legally deemed him an “applicant for admission,” he was not “seeking admission” within the ordinary meaning of that separate statutory phrase. His requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture protection were not requests for “admission,” which the statute defines as lawful entry after inspection and authorization.
The court concluded from the INA’s text, structure, and history that noncitizens present in the country without admission who are not seeking admission fall under § 1226 and may seek bond, subject to the INA’s other requirements. It reversed the district court’s denial of habeas relief and remanded with instructions to issue the writ. Judge Sykes dissented, reasoning that the statutory designation of Rojas as an applicant for admission placed him within § 1225’s mandatory-detention regime.
Key Takeaways
- A noncitizen’s release did not moot a habeas challenge where DHS had stated its intent to re-detain him and the administrative predicate for re-detention had occurred.
- Being statutorily deemed an “applicant for admission” does not necessarily mean that a person is “seeking admission” under § 1225(b)(2)(A).
- Interior noncitizens present without admission who are not seeking admission are governed by § 1226 and are eligible for bond hearings, subject to other INA restrictions.
Why It Matters
The decision rejects DHS’s newer interpretation that § 1225(b)(2)(A) requires mandatory detention without bond for all noncitizens present in the United States who were never admitted. In the Seventh Circuit, the ruling preserves access to § 1226 bond procedures for the category of interior noncitizens addressed by the court.
The opinion also deepens an acknowledged circuit split over the scope of § 1225’s mandatory-detention provision. The majority characterized its holding as limited to whether all interior noncitizens present without admission and facing removal proceedings must be detained without bond.