Summary
The United States District Court for the Western District of New York denied Luis Quizhpi-Guaman’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition challenging his immigration detention and seeking a bond hearing. The court held that, because he had not been admitted to the United States, detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) did not require a bond hearing under § 1226(a). The court also denied his temporary restraining order application as moot and concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to grant a stay of removal.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether a noncitizen who entered the United States without admission or inspection is subject to detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) without a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a).
- Whether the district court had jurisdiction to review the statutory detention challenge and related claims.
- Whether petitioner was entitled to habeas relief based on alleged denial of a continuance, ineffective assistance of counsel, or unreasonable detention.
- Whether the court could grant a stay of removal.
- Whether petitioner was entitled to a temporary restraining order.
Holdings
- A noncitizen who has not been admitted to the United States is an applicant for admission subject to detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A), and §§ 1225(b)(2)(A) and 1226(a), read together, do not require a bond hearing in these circumstances.
- The district court had jurisdiction to consider the habeas challenge to the legality of petitioner's ongoing detention because the petition did not challenge the Attorney General's decision or action to commence proceedings, adjudicate cases, or execute removal orders.
- The district court lacked jurisdiction to grant petitioner's requested stay of removal.
- Petitioner was not entitled to a temporary restraining order, and the TRO application was denied as moot after the petition was denied.
Key quotations
“Because the legal analysis is the same here, the Court relies on its previous decision, a copy of which is appended here as Exhibit A, and incorporates its analysis into this decision and order.” (Decision and Order)
“As such, one who enters the country unlawfully is an “applicant for admission” subject to detention without a bond hearing—and is not someone other than that under the statute who might be entitled to Section 1226(a) treatment.” (Exhibit A)
“For all of these reasons, the Court is satisfied that the statute does not require a bond hearing here.” (Exhibit A)
Factual background
Luis Quizhpi-Guaman is a native of Ecuador who entered the United States in or around July 2008 without admission, inspection, or parole. He was taken into Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody on July 16, 2025. The record contained no evidence that he had lawfully entered or been admitted to the United States. At the time of the petition, he challenged his detention and sought release or a bond hearing, as well as a stay of removal.
Procedural history
Luis Quizhpi-Guaman filed a § 2241 habeas petition on January 13, 2026, alleging unlawful detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), due process violations, ineffective assistance of counsel, and unreasonable detention. He also sought a temporary restraining order and a stay of removal. Respondents moved to dismiss. The court incorporated the analysis of its prior decision in Ferreira Candido v. Bondi, concluded that petitioner was detained under the mandatory-detention framework of § 1225(b)(2)(A), denied the petition and TRO, and closed the case.