Newark, NJ – A federal judge in New Jersey has ruled that a Mexican national held at an immigration detention facility in Newark for more than a month must be given an individualized bond hearing, finding that the government applied the wrong statute to justify his continued detention.
Agustin Romero Morales, who has lived in the United States for approximately 25 years after entering without inspection, was detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement on January 9 and placed at Delaney Hall Detention Facility. He filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, arguing that his detention without a bond hearing violated federal law and his due process rights.
In an opinion issued Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Susan D. Wigenton concluded that Morales is not subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2), a statute that applies to certain noncitizens deemed applicants for admission. Instead, the court ordered immigration officials to treat him as detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), which allows for a bond hearing before an immigration judge.
Morales remains housed at DelaneyHall, a privately operated immigration detention facility in Newark, while removal proceedings move forward.
The decision centers on whether Morales should be classified as an “applicant for admission” under federal immigration law, despite having lived in the country for decades before his recent arrest by ICE.
Court rejects mandatory detention argument
According to court filings, Morales, a citizen of Mexico, entered the United States without inspection or parole roughly 25 years ago. He was not detained at the time of entry and had been living in the interior of the country until immigration authorities encountered him earlier this year.
In his habeas petition filed under 2241, Morales argued that ICE was improperly holding him without a bond hearing based on a recent Board of Immigration Appeals decision, Matter of Yajure Hurtado, which held that immigration judges lack jurisdiction to hear bond requests from noncitizens detained under § 1225(b).
Morales contended that his detention could only be justified under § 1226(a), which governs noncitizens already present in the United States and permits, but does not require, detention pending removal proceedings. Under that statute, detainees may request a bond hearing before an immigration judge.
Respondents, including Acting ICE Director Todd M. Lyons and Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, maintained that Morales was properly detained under § 1225(b)(2). They argued that because he entered without inspection and was never lawfully admitted, he should be considered an applicant for admission and therefore subject to mandatory detention without bond.
Judge Wigenton rejected that interpretation, writing that the statutory language of § 1225(b) requires an examining immigration officer to determine that an applicant for admission is seeking entry and is not clearly entitled to be admitted.
- Morales entered the United States about 25 years ago and was detained in January at Delaney Hall.
- The government argued he was subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2).
- The court ruled he must receive a bond hearing under § 1226(a).
Citing recent federal decisions, the court emphasized the distinction between § 1225 and § 1226. Section 1225 governs individuals who are seeking admission into the country, while § 1226 applies to those already present in the United States and detained pending removal.
The opinion noted that Morales had been living in the country for decades before being detained and therefore could not be characterized as someone currently “seeking admission” within the ordinary meaning of the statute.
Long-term presence central to ruling
Judge Wigenton relied in part on other federal district court decisions that addressed similar circumstances. In one cited case, a court concluded that a noncitizen who had already entered and was present in the country could not be treated as seeking entry for purposes of mandatory detention.
The court also pointed to Supreme Court precedent clarifying that habeas jurisdiction over “core” detention challenges lies in the district of confinement. Because Morales was detained within the District of New Jersey and alleged that his custody violated federal law and due process, the court found it had jurisdiction to hear the petition.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c), habeas relief may be granted to a person in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States. The court found that Morales satisfied the “in custody” requirement and raised a colorable legal claim regarding the statutory basis for his detention.
The ruling concluded that detaining Morales under § 1225(b)(2) was inconsistent with federal law. As a result, the court ordered the government to treat him as detained under § 1226(a) and to provide him with an individualized bond hearing before an immigration judge.
The decision does not terminate removal proceedings against Morales. Instead, it requires immigration authorities to allow a bond determination to assess whether he may be released from custody while his case proceeds.