Santos Exequiel Mejia v. Sam Olson, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky denies Santos Exequiel Mejia’s habeas petition challenging his detention without a bond hearing during removal proceedings. The court holds that, because Mejia entered the United States without admission, he is an applicant for admission under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(a)(1), making his detention subject to the mandatory-detention provision of § 1225(b)(2)(A) rather than the bond provisions of § 1226(a).

Holdings

1. A noncitizen who is present in the United States without having been admitted is deemed an 'applicant for admission' under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(a)(1). When an immigration officer determines that the noncitizen is not clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to admission, § 1225(b)(2)(A) requires detention during removal proceedings and does not authorize a bond hearing.
2. Section 1225(b)(2)(A) is not limited to aliens physically arriving in the United States; it applies to the broader category of noncitizens deemed applicants for admission, including noncitizens present in the United States without admission.
3. The phrase 'alien seeking admission' in § 1225(b)(2)(A) does not impose an independent requirement separate from being an 'applicant for admission'; an alien deemed an applicant for admission is necessarily seeking admission.
4. Applying § 1225(b)(2)(A) to unadmitted noncitizens does not render § 1226(c) or the Laken Riley Act superfluous because those provisions impose a temporal requirement concerning when covered noncitizens must be taken into federal custody.
5. Mejia's detention without a bond hearing does not violate the Fifth Amendment because he is receiving the process Congress provided for noncitizens subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A).
6. The Central District of California's rulings in Maldonado Bautista did not bind this court or require relief for Mejia because those rulings did not order nationwide habeas relief or nationwide release and bond hearings for detainees outside that district.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Mejia's detention during removal proceedings is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A), requiring mandatory detention without bond, or by 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), which permits release on bond or conditional parole.
2. Whether § 1225(b)(2)(A) applies to a noncitizen who entered without inspection and has been present in the United States for years, rather than only to an arriving noncitizen.
3. Whether the phrase 'seeking admission' imposes an additional requirement beyond being an 'applicant for admission' under § 1225(b)(2)(A).
4. Whether applying § 1225(b)(2)(A) to Mejia renders 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) or the Laken Riley Act superfluous.
5. Whether detention without a bond hearing violates Mejia's Fifth Amendment due-process rights.
6. Whether the judgment in Maldonado Bautista v. Santacruz required this court to order Mejia's release or a bond hearing.

Disposition

dismissed