Summary
The United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania granted Kinjalben Sanjaykumar Patel’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The court held that mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) did not apply because Patel was not currently seeking admission to the United States, and that her detention without a bond hearing violated procedural due process. The court ordered her immediate release and permitted her to seek attorney’s fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act within thirty days of final judgment.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) authorizes mandatory detention of a noncitizen who previously entered the United States, was released into the country, and is not presently affirmatively seeking admission.
- Whether mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A) without a bond hearing violates procedural due process under the Fifth Amendment.
- Whether Patel was entitled to immediate release rather than only a bond hearing.
- Whether the court should determine Patel's entitlement to attorney's fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act in the habeas decision.
Holdings
- Section 1225(b)(2)(A) applies only to noncitizens who are actively and affirmatively seeking admission to the United States. It does not apply to Patel, who had previously entered the United States, had been released into the country, and was residing there rather than currently seeking admission.
- Patel's mandatory detention without an opportunity for a bond hearing under § 1225(b)(2)(A) violated her procedural due process rights.
- Patel was entitled to immediate release on her own recognizance rather than merely a bond hearing.
Key quotations
“Patel’s detention under Section 1225(b)(2)(A) is unlawful because Section 1225(b)(2)(A) “applies only to noncitizens who are actively, i.e., affirmatively, ‘seeking admission’ to the United States.”” (Discussion)
“Accordingly, the Mathews factors weigh in Patel’s favor and the court finds that her mandatory detention without a bond hearing under Section 1225(b)(2)(A) violates her procedural due process rights.” (Discussion)
“For these reasons, the court will grant Patel’s petition for writ of habeas corpus and order her immediate release.” (Conclusion)
Factual background
Patel, a native and citizen of India, was encountered by Border Patrol in New York on August 3, 2023, but was released after no notice to appear was filed, reportedly because of bed-space issues. DHS issued an arrest warrant on December 29, 2025, and ICE detained Patel the next day in Pennsylvania and transferred her to the Clinton County Correctional Facility. DHS charged her as removable under INA §§ 212(a)(6)(A)(i) and 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I), issued a notice to appear, and scheduled an immigration-judge hearing. The parties agreed that she was detained under § 1225(b)(2)(A), and neither alleged that § 1226(c) applied.
Procedural history
Patel filed a § 2241 petition in the Middle District of Pennsylvania seeking release from detention, alleging that DHS improperly detained her under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) rather than 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). Respondents opposed the petition and argued that detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A) was proper, while alternatively requesting a bond hearing instead of release. The court granted the petition, ordered Patel's immediate release on her own recognizance, and allowed her to seek EAJA fees and costs by motion within thirty days after entry of final judgment.