Brenda Liliana Mejicanos Cuyun V Kevin Raycraft Director Of Detroit Field

Key Facts

Issues

• The court examined the interpretation of 'seeking admission' in 8 U.S.C. §1225(b)(2)(A), determining it does not apply to noncitizens who have lived in the U.S. for years without attempting to obtain lawful entry. The analysis rejected the argument that 'applicants for admission' and 'aliens seeking admission' are synonymous, emphasizing statutory context and the canon against surplusage.
• The court evaluated whether the petitioner's prolonged detention without a bond hearing violated her Fifth Amendment due process rights. Applying the Matthews v. Eldridge balancing test, the court found the risk of erroneous deprivation was high and concluded the detention was unconstitutional due to the absence of an individualized custody redetermination hearing.
• The court addressed whether 8 U.S.C. §1225(b)(2)(A) mandates detention for noncitizens present in the U.S. without admission or if 8 U.S.C. §1226(a) allows discretionary detention with a bond hearing. The analysis focused on statutory language, recent policy changes, and the distinction between 'applicants for admission' and 'aliens seeking admission.' The court concluded §1226(a) applies to the petitioner, entitling her to a bond hearing.

Holdings

• The court concludes that 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) governs the petitioner's detention, making her subject to discretionary detention and eligible for a bond redetermination hearing. This determination is based on the interpretation that 'applicant for admission' and 'alien seeking admission' are distinct statutory terms, with the latter not applying to noncitizens already present in the U.S. for years without attempting lawful entry.
• The court acknowledges the petitioner's membership in a nationwide class certified in Bautista v. Santacruz (2025 WL 3288403) but defers to the district court's discretion to determine the relevance of that class action to the current petition.
• The court finds that the petitioner's continued detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A) violates her Fifth Amendment due process rights. The analysis weighs her private interest in liberty, the risk of erroneous deprivation without a bond hearing, and the lack of significant government interest in denying the hearing.

Remedies

Legal Principles

• The court noted that under BIA precedent, the burden lies with the alien to demonstrate at a bond hearing that they do not pose a danger, flight risk, or national security threat. This standard was central to the analysis of whether Petitioner's detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A) deprived her of due process.
• The court applied the plain meaning of statutory language to determine that 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), not § 1225(b)(2)(A), governs Petitioner's detention. It emphasized that statutory terms like 'applicant for admission' and 'alien seeking admission' must be interpreted according to their unambiguous text, rejecting Respondents' argument that the terms are synonymous.
• The court asserted its authority to review Petitioner's detention despite Respondents' claims that 8 U.S.C. §§ 1252(e)(3), 1252(g), and 1252(b)(9) barred jurisdiction. It concluded these provisions did not strip the court of power to assess whether Petitioner's detention violated due process or statutory obligations.

Precedent Name

• Bautista v. Santacruz
• In re Guerra
• Reno v. Am. Arab Anti-Discrimination Comm.
• In re Yajure Hurtado
• Loper Bright Enter. v. Raimondo
• Kentucky v. Biden
• Jennings v. Rodriguez
• Corley v. United States
• Hibbs v. Winn
• Dubin v. United States
• Roman v. Ashcroft

Cited Statute

• Immigration and Nationality Act
• United States Code
• Public Law

Judge Name

• Darrell A. Clay
• Jeffrey J. Helmick

Passage Text

• The foregoing considerations lead me to conclude that § 1226(a), not § 1225(b)(2)(A), applies to Petitioner who has lived in this country for over 20 years. She is therefore subject to discretionary detention, and so she may appropriately seek a bond redetermination hearing.
• Accordingly, I conclude § 1226(a), not § 1225(b)(2)(A), applies and Petitioner's current detention under the mandatory detention framework in §1225(b)(2)(A) violates her Fifth Amendment right to due process.
• Because 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) is inapplicable to Petitioner, Respondents may not subject her to mandatory detention pending her removal. I therefore recommend the District Court GRANT the petition and require Respondents hold a hearing no more than five business days after disposition of this Report and Recommendation to determine whether Petitioner's release is warranted and under what conditions, if any.