Emilio Polo Noel v. Kelei Walker, et al.

Polo Noel · United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida · March 10, 2026 · No. 25-cv-26093-ALTMAN

Summary

The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida denied Emilio Polo Noel’s amended habeas petition challenging his mandatory immigration detention. The court held that an alien present in the United States without having been admitted is an applicant for admission subject to detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A), rather than detention under § 1226(a) with an individualized bond hearing. The court also rejected the due-process claims and held that it lacked jurisdiction to enjoin the government from transferring the petitioner to another detention facility.

Holdings

  1. An alien who is present in the United States but has not been admitted is an applicant for admission under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(a)(1), regardless of how long the alien has been in the country or how far the alien is from the border. Noel's detention was therefore governed by § 1225, which requires mandatory detention and does not provide a right to an individualized bond hearing.
  2. Noel's detention under § 1225 without an individualized bond hearing did not violate the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause.
  3. The district court lacked jurisdiction to enjoin the Government from transferring Noel to another detention facility or district because the Attorney General's detention-placement decisions are discretionary and insulated from judicial review by 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), in conjunction with § 1231(g).

Questions Presented

  1. Whether an alien present in the United States without having been lawfully admitted is an applicant for admission subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A), rather than detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) with eligibility for an individualized bond hearing.
  2. Whether detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) without an individualized bond hearing violates the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause.
  3. Whether the district court had jurisdiction under the All Writs Act and the immigration statutes to enjoin the Government from transferring the petitioner to another detention facility or district.

Disposition

denied

Cases Cited (13)

  • Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 687 (2001)(followed)
  • Morales v. Noem, 2026 WL 236307, at *8 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 29, 2026)(followed)
  • Ardon-Quiroz v. Assistant Field Dir., 2025 WL 3451645, at *7 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 1, 2025)(distinguished)
  • Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, 166 F.4th 494 (5th Cir. 2026)(followed)
  • Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510, 528 (2003)(followed)
  • Flores-Reyes v. Assistant Field Off. Dir., 2026 WL 406708, at *4 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 13, 2026)(followed)
  • Boulos v. Dir., U.S. DHS ICE ERO Miami Field Off., 2025 WL 4092609, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 11, 2025)(followed)
  • Guerra-Castro v. Parra, 2025 WL 1984300, at *2 (S.D. Fla. July 17, 2025)(followed)
  • Calla-Collado v. Attorney General of the United States, 663 F.3d 680, 685 (3d Cir. 2011)(followed)
  • Uulu v. Warden, 2026 WL 412204 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 13, 2026)(cited)

Showing top 10 of 13.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…