Erika Rodriguez-Acurio v. Judith Almodovar, Kristi Noem, and Pamela Bondi

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted Erika Rodriguez-Acurio's petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The court held that her detention was governed by the discretionary detention framework of 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), rather than the mandatory detention provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b), and that her detention without notice or an opportunity to be heard violated the Fifth Amendment's procedural due process protections. The court ordered her release, which was effectuated on November 10, 2025.

Holdings

1. A noncitizen who was previously paroled into the United States under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5)(A) cannot be designated for expedited removal and mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(1)(A)(iii)(II) merely because the parole later expired or was terminated.
2. Rodriguez-Acurio was not an 'arriving alien' when ICE arrested her in New York more than four years after her physical entry into the United States, so the arriving-alien provision did not authorize her mandatory detention.
3. Rodriguez-Acurio was not subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A) because, although she was an applicant for admission, she was not 'seeking admission.'
4. Because neither § 1225(b)(1) nor § 1225(b)(2) applied, Rodriguez-Acurio's detention was governed by the discretionary detention framework of § 1226(a).
5. ICE violated Rodriguez-Acurio's Fifth Amendment right to procedural due process by arresting and detaining her under § 1226(a) without prior notice, an opportunity to be heard, or an individualized determination of flight or public-safety risk.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Rodriguez-Acurio's detention was governed by the mandatory-detention provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1).
2. Whether Rodriguez-Acurio was an alien who had not been admitted or paroled into the United States for purposes of the designation provision in 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1)(A)(iii)(II), despite having previously been paroled into the United States.
3. Whether Rodriguez-Acurio was an 'arriving alien' under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1)(A)(i) when she was arrested more than four years after entering the United States.
4. Whether Rodriguez-Acurio was 'seeking admission' within the meaning of 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A).
5. Whether her detention was instead governed by the discretionary-detention framework of 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and violated her procedural due process rights under the Fifth Amendment because she received no notice or opportunity to be heard before detention.

Disposition

granted