Summary
The United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania held that 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), rather than the mandatory-detention provision of § 1225(b), governs the detention of a noncitizen who is already present in the United States and not seeking admission at a port of entry. The court granted the habeas petition in part and ordered an individualized bond hearing before a neutral immigration judge. It denied the petitioner's request for attorneys’ fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act because the government's position was substantially justified.
Court
United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction
United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
Decision date
June 9, 2026
Docket number
Civil No. 26-1024
Disposition
other
Questions Presented
- Whether 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), rather than the mandatory-detention provision of 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2), governs the detention of a noncitizen who is already present in the interior of the United States and is not seeking admission at a port of entry.
- Whether Petitioner is entitled to an individualized bond hearing under § 1226(a).
- Whether Petitioner is entitled to attorneys' fees and expenses under the Equal Access to Justice Act.
Holdings
- Section 1226(a), rather than the mandatory-detention provision of § 1225(b)(2), applies to a noncitizen who is already present in the United States and is not seeking admission at a port of entry.
- Because Petitioner's detention is governed by § 1226(a), he has a statutory right to an individualized bond hearing before a neutral immigration judge.
- Petitioner is not entitled to attorneys' fees and expenses under the Equal Access to Justice Act because the government's incorrect interpretation of § 1225(a) was substantially justified.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…