NEWARK, NJ – A federal judge has ordered immigration authorities to grant a bond hearing to a man held at the Delaney Hall Detention Facility, finding that he was wrongly detained under a statute typically reserved for recent border arrivals.
In a February 17 ruling, U.S. District Judge Edward S. Kiel granted a habeas corpus petition filed by Yaobing Wu, determining that his continued detention without a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. §1225(b)(2) violated federal law. The judge concluded that Wu’s case did not fall within the scope of the statute governing “applicants for admission,” as Wu had been living in the United States for some time before his arrest.
The ruling directly challenges the federal government’s interpretation of 8 U.S.C. §1225(b)(2), a provision central to immigration detention policy. It also highlights growing judicial resistance to broad applications of mandatory detention in cases involving immigrants arrested inside the country rather than near the border.
Court rejects broad application of detention law
Wu entered the U.S. without inspection in 2023 and was arrested by ICE on January 16, 2026, according to court documents. Government attorneys argued he was subject to mandatory detention under §1225(b)(2), citing the Department of Homeland Security’s policy and the Board of Immigration Appeals’ 2025 decision in Matter of Yajure Hurtado, 29 I&N Dec. 215.
Judge Kiel rejected that argument, holding that §1225(b)(2) applies only to border or port-of-entry encounters. He found that noncitizens already present in the United States fall under 8 U.S.C. §1226(a), which provides for discretionary detention and allows bond hearings.
The court relied on Ayala Amaya v. Bondi, a 2025 New Jersey decision limiting §1225(b)(2) to border situations, while acknowledging a contrary February 6 ruling from the Fifth Circuit in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, which took a broader view of who qualifies as an “applicant for admission.”
“Petitioner is unlawfully detained under §1225(b)(2); therefore, I will grant the Petition,” Judge Kiel wrote.
Conflicting rulings set stage for higher court review
Section 1225(b)(2) governs individuals encountered at or near the border, mandating detention during removal proceedings. In contrast, §1226(a) gives immigration judges discretion to release detainees on bond.
Federal authorities have increasingly invoked §1225(b)(2) for individuals arrested long after entering the country, a move now facing judicial pushback. The conflict between district courts and appellate rulings indicates the issue may soon reach higher courts for resolution.
Key points:
- A federal judge ruled ICE detainee Yaobing Wu was improperly held under §1225(b)(2).
- The decision orders a bond hearing within seven days of February 17.
- The ruling underscores a growing legal divide over federal immigration detention statutes.
Potential ripple effects for New Jersey detainees
Under the order, Wu must now receive a bond hearing before an immigration judge within seven days. The government must report the result to the court within 24 hours of the hearing. While the ruling doesn’t ensure Wu’s release, it guarantees him a chance to seek freedom pending his immigration proceedings.
For other detainees held in New Jersey under similar conditions, the case may serve as persuasive precedent in challenging the federal government’s use of mandatory detention for individuals arrested inside the country. Its broader influence, however, may hinge on future appellate or Supreme Court review.