{ "attribution": { "source": "legal.exploreworldai.com", "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca2-25-3141-2026-09-25", "cite_as": "NovaCopilot, legal.exploreworldai.com (https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca2-25-3141-2026-09-25)", "license": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/revision", "version": "legal-2026-10-05", "fingerprint": "ewai:se:5aa9a2", "proof": "sha256:19af8c5f92cf38bb2eda38ad7be8b9ddf009f385c748fbc134008ab5eded483b", "jurisdiction": "se", "lang": "en", "publisher": "NovaCopilot by ExploreWorld Legal", "terms": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/om" }, "brand_source": "Source: NovaCopilot", "brand": { "product": "NovaCopilot", "platform": "ExploreWorldAI", "infrastructure": "ExploreWorld Legal", "infrastructure_url": "legal.exploreworldai.com", "legal_entity": "Valkiv Ventures AB", "permanent_url": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/novacopilot", "source": "Source: NovaCopilot", "powered_by": "Powered by NovaCopilot", "license": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/licensvillkor", "contact": "stig@valkiv.com" }, "item": { "schema_version": "1.0.0", "id": "us:ca2-25-3141-2026-09-25", "jurisdiction": "us", "lang": "en", "brand_source": "Source: NovaCopilot", "brand": { "product": "NovaCopilot", "platform": "ExploreWorldAI", "infrastructure": "ExploreWorld Legal", "infrastructure_url": "legal.exploreworldai.com", "legal_entity": "Valkiv Ventures AB", "permanent_url": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/novacopilot", "source": "Source: NovaCopilot", "powered_by": "Powered by NovaCopilot", "license": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/licensvillkor", "contact": "stig@valkiv.com" }, "sections": [ { "title": "25-3141", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Barbosa da Cunha v. Freden", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "United States Court of Appeals", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "FOR THE", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "SECOND CIRCUIT", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "ORDER", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second", "paragraphs": [ "para_8", "para_9" ] }, { "title": "Present:", "paragraphs": [ "para_11", "para_12", "para_13", "para_14", "para_15", "para_16", "para_17", "para_18", "para_19", "para_20", "para_21", "para_22", "para_23", "para_24", "para_25", "para_26", "para_27", "para_28" ] }, { "title": "2", "paragraphs": [ "para_30", "para_31", "para_32", "para_33" ] }, { "title": "For Respondent-Appellant: Tiberius T. Davis, Counsel to the Assistant", "paragraphs": [ "para_35", "para_36" ] }, { "title": "Yaakov M. Roth, Principal Deputy Assistant", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Attorney General, Drew C. Ensign, Deputy", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Assistant Attorney General, Benjamin", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Hayes, Senior Counsel to the Assistant", "paragraphs": [ "para_41" ] }, { "title": "Assistant Director, Jessica R. Lesnau, Trial", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Attorney, on the brief), U.S. Department of", "paragraphs": [ "para_44" ] }, { "title": "For Petitioner-Appellee: Michael K.T. Tan, American Civil Liberties", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Union Foundation, San Francisco, CA (My", "paragraphs": [ "para_47", "para_48" ] }, { "title": "San Francisco, CA, Judy Rabinovitz, Natalie", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Behr, American Civil Liberties Union", "paragraphs": [ "para_51", "para_52" ] }, { "title": "NY, Paul O’Dwyer, Law Office of Paul", "paragraphs": [ "para_54" ] }, { "title": "For Amici Curiae Immigration Law", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Scholars, in support of Petitioner-", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Appellee:", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Amit Jain, Roderick & Solange MacArthur", "paragraphs": [ "para_59" ] }, { "title": "For Amici Curiae American", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Immigration Council and American", "paragraphs": [ "para_62", "para_63" ] }, { "title": "Suchita Mathur, Emma Winger, American", "paragraphs": [ "para_65", "para_66" ] }, { "title": "3", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Following disposition of this appeal on April 28, 2026, an active judge of the", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Court requested a poll on whether to rehear the case in banc. A poll having been", "paragraphs": [ "para_70", "para_71", "para_72" ] }, { "title": "Lee, Beth Robinson, Myrna Pérez, and Sarah A. L. Merriam, Circuit Judges, concur", "paragraphs": [ "para_74" ] }, { "title": "Matthew A. Schwartz, Circuit Judge, joined by Richard J. Sullivan, Circuit", "paragraphs": [ "para_76", "para_77", "para_78" ] }, { "title": "José A. Cabranes, Circuit Judge, filed a statement with respect to the denial", "paragraphs": [ "para_80" ] }, { "title": "FOR THE COURT:", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "1", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "25-3141-pr", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Barbosa da Cunha v. Freden", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "BIANCO and NATHAN, Circuit Judges, joined by LEE, ROBINSON, PÉREZ, and", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "MERRIAM, Circuit Judges, concurring in the denial of rehearing en banc:", "paragraphs": [ "para_88" ] }, { "title": "Section 1225 governs Petitioner’s detention.” Barbosa da Cunha v. Freden, 175", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "F.4th 61, 70 (2d Cir. 2026). The government and Judge Menashi in his dissent from", "paragraphs": [ "para_91", "para_92", "para_93", "para_94" ] }, { "title": "American businesses, members of American communities—but that some thirty", "paragraphs": [ "para_96", "para_97", "para_98", "para_99", "para_100" ] }, { "title": "For the detailed explanation as to why this contention is wrong given the", "paragraphs": [ "para_102", "para_103" ] }, { "title": "(Cabranes, J., concurring). The unanimous conclusion we reached follows from", "paragraphs": [ "para_105", "para_106", "para_107", "para_108", "para_109" ] }, { "title": "One would not know from reading Judge Menashi’s dissent that this", "paragraphs": [ "para_111", "para_112", "para_113", "para_114" ] }, { "title": "1 We do not address the novel and unrelated contentions raised by Judge Schwartz in", "paragraphs": [ "para_116" ] }, { "title": "2", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "The dissent argues that the panel erred by treating Petitioner’s requested", "paragraphs": [ "para_119", "para_120" ] }, { "title": "Post at 46 (emphasis in original). Instead, the dissent contends that Petitioner “was", "paragraphs": [ "para_122" ] }, { "title": "Setting aside that this argument was not raised or briefed—which is reason", "paragraphs": [ "para_124" ] }, { "title": "As a factual matter, Petitioner did seek release based on the unlawfulness of", "paragraphs": [ "para_126", "para_127", "para_128", "para_129", "para_130", "para_131", "para_132", "para_133" ] }, { "title": "(“Neither respondent seeks an injunction ordering his immediate or speedier", "paragraphs": [ "para_135", "para_136", "para_137" ] }, { "title": "In any event, the dissent’s single-minded focus on whether Petitioner", "paragraphs": [ "para_139", "para_140", "para_141" ] }, { "title": "Bush, 553 U.S. 723, 779 (2008) (“[R]elease need not be the exclusive remedy and is", "paragraphs": [ "para_143" ] }, { "title": "591 U.S. at 137 (noting that Boumediene “reaffirmed that release is . . . not the", "paragraphs": [ "para_145", "para_146" ] }, { "title": "604 U.S. at 672. The dissent’s cramped contrary view comes largely from post-", "paragraphs": [ "para_148", "para_149", "para_150", "para_151", "para_152" ] }, { "title": "3", "paragraphs": [ "para_154", "para_155", "para_156" ] }, { "title": "Although we will not accept the dissent’s invitation to sketch the bounds of", "paragraphs": [ "para_158", "para_159", "para_160" ] }, { "title": "Section 1226 if the government granted him a bond hearing. App’x at 17–18. He", "paragraphs": [ "para_162", "para_163", "para_164", "para_165", "para_166", "para_167" ] }, { "title": "25 Civ. 6532, Dkt. 25 (W.D.N.Y. Oct. 20, 2025). In other words, Petitioner", "paragraphs": [ "para_169", "para_170", "para_171", "para_172" ] }, { "title": "The dissent argues that “compar[ing] the relief the district court ordered to", "paragraphs": [ "para_174", "para_175", "para_176", "para_177", "para_178", "para_179", "para_180", "para_181", "para_182" ] }, { "title": "209–10 (1951). This case illustrates these benefits. Instead of requiring the", "paragraphs": [ "para_184", "para_185", "para_186", "para_187", "para_188" ] }, { "title": "4", "paragraphs": [ "para_190" ] }, { "title": "In sum, the petition, in challenging the lawfulness of Petitioner’s detention", "paragraphs": [ "para_192", "para_193", "para_194", "para_195" ] }, { "title": "As to the sole question presented on appeal—whether Section 1225 or", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Section 1226 governed Petitioner’s detention—our holding was dictated by the", "paragraphs": [ "para_198", "para_199" ] }, { "title": "F.4th at 74. Petitioner, who entered the United States unlawfully more than two", "paragraphs": [ "para_201", "para_202" ] }, { "title": "(Cabranes, J., concurring). Accordingly, his detention was governed by Section", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "1226, which entitled him to a bond hearing. The dissent’s “attempt to muddy these", "paragraphs": [ "para_205", "para_206", "para_207" ] }, { "title": "According to the dissent, the nine circuits and hundreds of district courts to grant", "paragraphs": [ "para_209", "para_210", "para_211" ] }, { "title": "Because the district court was right on the statutory question and had", "paragraphs": [ "para_213", "para_214" ] }, { "title": "1", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "SCHWARTZ, Circuit Judge, joined by SULLIVAN, Circuit Judge, concurring in", "paragraphs": [ "para_217" ] }, { "title": "Although I agree with the analysis in the dissent, I support the decision to", "paragraphs": [ "para_219", "para_220", "para_221" ] }, { "title": "Further, there is a deep and widening circuit split on the nationally important", "paragraphs": [ "para_223" ] }, { "title": "Section 1225 or Section 1226. In general, issues for “which Supreme Court", "paragraphs": [ "para_225", "para_226", "para_227", "para_228" ] }, { "title": "1, 14 (2001) (“[T]he Second Circuit’s approach to in banc review—one that holds", "paragraphs": [ "para_230" ] }, { "title": "Supreme Court resolution—is sound, and it will continue to serve this [C]ircuit well", "paragraphs": [ "para_232", "para_233", "para_234", "para_235" ] }, { "title": "2", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Mansfield & Mulligan, JJ., concurring in the denial of rehearing en banc) (“En banc", "paragraphs": [ "para_238", "para_239" ] }, { "title": "While awaiting the Supreme Court’s guidance, en banc review is also", "paragraphs": [ "para_241", "para_242", "para_243", "para_244", "para_245" ] }, { "title": "Congress has made the Attorney General’s reasons for such a decision unreviewable", "paragraphs": [ "para_247", "para_248", "para_249", "para_250", "para_251", "para_252" ] }, { "title": "As to aliens as a group, Congress has given the Attorney General very broad", "paragraphs": [ "para_254" ] }, { "title": "General (1) “may continue to detain [an] arrested alien” or (2) “may release the", "paragraphs": [ "para_256" ] }, { "title": "3", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "(2). In other words, there is no statutory requirement for the United States to offer", "paragraphs": [ "para_259", "para_260", "para_261", "para_262", "para_263", "para_264" ] }, { "title": "25-3141", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Barbosa da Cunha v. Freden", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "MENASHI, Circuit Judge, joined as to Parts I and II-E by PARK, Circuit", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Judge, dissenting from the denial of rehearing en banc:", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Justice Scalia once identified the “true rule” of statutory", "paragraphs": [ "para_270", "para_271", "para_272", "para_273" ] }, { "title": "572 U.S. 844, 871 (2014) (Scalia, J., concurring in the judgment)", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "(quoting Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914, 942 (2000)). In Barbosa da", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Cunha v. Freden, 175 F.4th 61 (2d Cir. 2026), a panel of this court", "paragraphs": [ "para_277", "para_278" ] }, { "title": "In Barbosa da Cunha, the panel held that 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A)", "paragraphs": [ "para_280", "para_281", "para_282", "para_283", "para_284" ] }, { "title": "That is wrong. The statute provides that “in the case of an alien", "paragraphs": [ "para_286", "para_287", "para_288", "para_289", "para_290", "para_291", "para_292" ] }, { "title": "Thus, the statute deems an unadmitted and illegally present", "paragraphs": [ "para_294", "para_295" ] }, { "title": "2", "paragraphs": [ "para_297" ] }, { "title": "But under the scheme that Congress enacted, those aliens are", "paragraphs": [ "para_299", "para_300" ] }, { "title": "2012). In a legal—albeit “artificial”—sense, those constructive", "paragraphs": [ "para_302" ] }, { "title": "INA. Id. (alteration omitted). I would rehear this case en banc to give", "paragraphs": [ "para_304", "para_305", "para_306" ] }, { "title": "The panel made an additional error—unrelated to the statutory", "paragraphs": [ "para_308", "para_309", "para_310", "para_311", "para_312", "para_313", "para_314", "para_315", "para_316", "para_317", "para_318" ] }, { "title": "Allowing Barbosa da Cunha to bring such a claim in habeas", "paragraphs": [ "para_320", "para_321", "para_322", "para_323", "para_324" ] }, { "title": "Court emphasized that such a writ “is not a form of relief that was", "paragraphs": [ "para_326" ] }, { "title": "3", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "DHS v. Thuraissigiam, 591 U.S. 103, 117 n.13 (2020) (internal quotation", "paragraphs": [ "para_329" ] }, { "title": "The writ of habeas corpus “has never encompassed” the sort of claim", "paragraphs": [ "para_331", "para_332", "para_333", "para_334" ] }, { "title": "This case “involves one or more questions of exceptional", "paragraphs": [ "para_336", "para_337", "para_338", "para_339" ] }, { "title": "2026) (Douglas, J., dissenting). And the panel opinion “conflicts with”", "paragraphs": [ "para_341" ] }, { "title": "The panel expressly rejected the holdings of the Fifth and Eighth", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Circuits with respect to the same issue. See Barbosa da Cunha, 175 F.4th", "paragraphs": [ "para_344", "para_345", "para_346", "para_347", "para_348", "para_349" ] }, { "title": "1 See Lopez-Campos v. Raycraft, 175 F.4th 713, 734-35 (6th Cir. 2026);", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Hernandez Alvarez v. Warden, 175 F.4th 1258, 1285 (11th Cir. 2026); Santillan", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Quiroz v. Mullin, 180 F.4th 1226, 1250-51 (10th Cir. 2026); Rodriguez Vazquez", "paragraphs": [ "para_353" ] }, { "title": "909, 931 (7th Cir. 2026); Guerrero Orellana v. Moniz, No. 25-2152, 2026 WL", "paragraphs": [ "para_355", "para_356" ] }, { "title": "4", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "I would rehear the case en banc both to give effect to the statute", "paragraphs": [ "para_359", "para_360" ] }, { "title": "I", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "This case involves two provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1225. First, there", "paragraphs": [ "para_363", "para_364", "para_365", "para_366", "para_367" ] }, { "title": "Second, there is the deeming provision: “An alien present in the", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "United States who has not been admitted or who arrives in the United", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an", "paragraphs": [ "para_371", "para_372", "para_373" ] }, { "title": "The detention provision requires the detention pending a", "paragraphs": [ "para_375", "para_376", "para_377", "para_378", "para_379" ] }, { "title": "United States. The question is whether that constructive applicant for", "paragraphs": [ "para_381", "para_382" ] }, { "title": "The panel concluded that a constructive applicant for", "paragraphs": [ "para_384", "para_385", "para_386" ] }, { "title": "5", "paragraphs": [ "para_388" ] }, { "title": "F.4th at 74. Second, the panel noted that “‘admission’ is defined by", "paragraphs": [ "para_390", "para_391" ] }, { "title": "In the absence of a statutory definition, the panel defined “entry” as", "paragraphs": [ "para_393", "para_394" ] }, { "title": "International Dictionary 759, 756 (1993)). Third, the panel said that", "paragraphs": [ "para_396", "para_397", "para_398" ] }, { "title": "Putting these steps together, the panel concluded that the", "paragraphs": [ "para_400", "para_401", "para_402", "para_403", "para_404", "para_405", "para_406", "para_407" ] }, { "title": "In other words, Barbosa da Cunha (1) is an “applicant for", "paragraphs": [ "para_409" ] }, { "title": "(2) he is not “seeking admission” because he is not actually requesting", "paragraphs": [ "para_411", "para_412" ] }, { "title": "Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 105 (1993)). But the", "paragraphs": [ "para_414", "para_415", "para_416" ] }, { "title": "I. & N. Dec. at 743 n.6). Those constructive applicants “have not and", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "6", "paragraphs": [ "para_419", "para_420", "para_421", "para_422" ] }, { "title": "According to the panel, Barbosa da Cunha can “only be an", "paragraphs": [ "para_424", "para_425" ] }, { "title": "(quoting Feliciano v. DOT, 605 U.S. 38, 45 (2025)). While the panel", "paragraphs": [ "para_427", "para_428", "para_429", "para_430", "para_431" ] }, { "title": "Id. And “[u]sing the ordinary meaning of ‘seeking admission,’ no one", "paragraphs": [ "para_433", "para_434" ] }, { "title": "In the end, the panel held that even though Barbosa da Cunha", "paragraphs": [ "para_436", "para_437" ] }, { "title": "A", "paragraphs": [ "para_439" ] }, { "title": "First, the panel misunderstood what it means to seek admission", "paragraphs": [ "para_441", "para_442", "para_443" ] }, { "title": "398, 401 (1929)). That is incorrect because, as the Board of Immigration", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Appeals has long recognized, “‘admission’ can include an adjustment", "paragraphs": [ "para_446", "para_447" ] }, { "title": "7", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "616, 617-23 (BIA 1999)). The BIA has rejected the contention that a", "paragraphs": [ "para_450", "para_451", "para_452", "para_453", "para_454", "para_455" ] }, { "title": "Rosas-Ramirez, 22 I. & N. Dec. at 619 (holding that “the phrase ‘after", "paragraphs": [ "para_457", "para_458", "para_459" ] }, { "title": "We have previously recognized that an alien already present in", "paragraphs": [ "para_461" ] }, { "title": "We explained that “with an adjustment application, the criminal alien", "paragraphs": [ "para_463", "para_464" ] }, { "title": "(2d Cir. 2018). In other words, “an alien within the United States who", "paragraphs": [ "para_466", "para_467", "para_468" ] }, { "title": "Attorney General, 692 F.3d 1168, 1176 (11th Cir. 2012) (internal", "paragraphs": [ "para_470" ] }, { "title": "At the same time, not every alien who seeks an actual entry into", "paragraphs": [ "para_472", "para_473", "para_474", "para_475", "para_476", "para_477", "para_478" ] }, { "title": "8", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "INA because “[n]either a grant of parole nor a grant of asylum", "paragraphs": [ "para_481", "para_482", "para_483" ] }, { "title": "409, 415 (2021).2", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "So it is wrong to say that “seeking admission” under the INA", "paragraphs": [ "para_486", "para_487", "para_488", "para_489", "para_490", "para_491" ] }, { "title": "An alien who requires a determination that he is admissible in order", "paragraphs": [ "para_493", "para_494", "para_495", "para_496" ] }, { "title": "2 See Sanchez, 593 U.S. at 415 (“On the one hand, a foreign national can be", "paragraphs": [ "para_498", "para_499", "para_500", "para_501", "para_502", "para_503", "para_504" ] }, { "title": "3 See Lemus-Losa v. Holder, 576 F.3d 752, 757 (7th Cir. 2009) (“We have no", "paragraphs": [ "para_506", "para_507", "para_508", "para_509", "para_510" ] }, { "title": "9", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Second, the panel misunderstood how the deeming provision", "paragraphs": [ "para_513", "para_514", "para_515" ] }, { "title": "175 F.4th at 74-76 (emphasis added). But the INA does not provide a", "paragraphs": [ "para_517", "para_518", "para_519", "para_520", "para_521", "para_522", "para_523", "para_524", "para_525" ] }, { "title": "Although the unadmitted illegal alien must be treated as if he", "paragraphs": [ "para_527", "para_528", "para_529", "para_530", "para_531" ] }, { "title": "4 In other words, the deeming provision “does not ‘define’ ‘applicant for", "paragraphs": [ "para_533", "para_534" ] }, { "title": "Instead, “Congress told us what unadmitted aliens, like Petitioner, are to be", "paragraphs": [ "para_536", "para_537", "para_538", "para_539" ] }, { "title": "5 See Barbosa da Cunha, 175 F.4th at 75 (“‘Applicant’ ordinarily means ‘one", "paragraphs": [ "para_541", "para_542" ] }, { "title": "10", "paragraphs": [ "para_544", "para_545", "para_546", "para_547", "para_548", "para_549" ] }, { "title": "In this case, the statute deems an unadmitted illegal alien to be", "paragraphs": [ "para_551", "para_552", "para_553", "para_554", "para_555", "para_556", "para_557", "para_558", "para_559", "para_560" ] }, { "title": "175 F.4th at 741 (Murphy, J., dissenting) (alterations and citation", "paragraphs": [ "para_562", "para_563", "para_564", "para_565", "para_566" ] }, { "title": "The panel’s error can be seen in its own analogy to a baseball", "paragraphs": [ "para_568" ] }, { "title": "If someone sneaks into Yankee Stadium at the start of the", "paragraphs": [ "para_570", "para_571", "para_572", "para_573" ] }, { "title": "11", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Barbosa da Cunha, 175 F.4th at 76. That is correct, as far as it goes. But", "paragraphs": [ "para_576", "para_577", "para_578", "para_579", "para_580", "para_581", "para_582", "para_583", "para_584", "para_585", "para_586", "para_587", "para_588" ] }, { "title": "B", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "The panel failed to give effect to the deeming provision. That", "paragraphs": [ "para_591", "para_592", "para_593", "para_594", "para_595" ] }, { "title": "175 F.4th at 741 (Murphy, J., dissenting). According to the logic of the", "paragraphs": [ "para_597", "para_598", "para_599", "para_600", "para_601", "para_602", "para_603" ] }, { "title": "8 U.S.C. § 1225(a)(1). Whatever requirements the INA applies to an", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "12", "paragraphs": [ "para_606", "para_607", "para_608" ] }, { "title": "The BIA clarified this aspect of the INA in 2012. In Matter of", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Lemus-Losa, the BIA considered a case involving a Mexican citizen", "paragraphs": [ "para_611", "para_612", "para_613" ] }, { "title": "United States and returned to Mexico. In 2003, [he] reentered the", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "United States, again without inspection, and … remained here in", "paragraphs": [ "para_616" ] }, { "title": "The government commenced removal proceedings. Before the", "paragraphs": [ "para_618" ] }, { "title": "United States” because he was “present without having been", "paragraphs": [ "para_620" ] }, { "title": "To qualify for an adjustment, “an applicant must be ‘physically", "paragraphs": [ "para_622", "para_623" ] }, { "title": "(quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1255(i)(1), (2)(A)). The immigration judge", "paragraphs": [ "para_625", "para_626", "para_627", "para_628", "para_629", "para_630", "para_631", "para_632" ] }, { "title": "The question before the BIA was whether Lemus-Losa was", "paragraphs": [ "para_634" ] }, { "title": "13", "paragraphs": [ "para_636", "para_637", "para_638", "para_639", "para_640", "para_641", "para_642", "para_643", "para_644", "para_645" ] }, { "title": "The BIA acknowledged that in a “prior decision, confusion", "paragraphs": [ "para_647", "para_648", "para_649", "para_650", "para_651", "para_652", "para_653" ] }, { "title": "24 I. & N. Dec. 373, 376 n.3 (BIA 2007)). The BIA explained that", "paragraphs": [ "para_655", "para_656", "para_657", "para_658" ] }, { "title": "What we failed to discern is that all aliens who have", "paragraphs": [ "para_660" ] }, { "title": "United States have necessarily been “applicants for", "paragraphs": [ "para_662", "para_663" ] }, { "title": "(in that they had entered the United States with visas or", "paragraphs": [ "para_665", "para_666" ] }, { "title": "14", "paragraphs": [ "para_668", "para_669", "para_670", "para_671", "para_672", "para_673", "para_674" ] }, { "title": "Id. (second alteration in original). The BIA thus explained that the", "paragraphs": [ "para_676", "para_677", "para_678", "para_679" ] }, { "title": "So when an alien with a prior period of unlawful presence reenters", "paragraphs": [ "para_681", "para_682", "para_683", "para_684", "para_685" ] }, { "title": "The informed judgment of the BIA as to how the INA operates", "paragraphs": [ "para_687", "para_688", "para_689" ] }, { "title": "6 See Singh v. Bondi, 139 F.4th 189, 202 n.7 (2d Cir. 2025) (“In an agency case", "paragraphs": [ "para_691", "para_692", "para_693", "para_694" ] }, { "title": "7 Those opinions that agree with the panel have similarly relied on the", "paragraphs": [ "para_696" ] }, { "title": "722-23 (“Contemporary dictionary definitions of ‘seek’ or ‘seeking’ confirm", "paragraphs": [ "para_698" ] }, { "title": "15", "paragraphs": [ "para_700", "para_701", "para_702", "para_703" ] }, { "title": "The panel dismissed the significance of the BIA’s decision in", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Lemus-Losa. The panel wrote that “even if Lemus-Losa were correct, it", "paragraphs": [ "para_706", "para_707", "para_708", "para_709", "para_710" ] }, { "title": "Section 1182(a)(9) to work, noncitizens who ‘again seek admission’", "paragraphs": [ "para_712", "para_713", "para_714", "para_715", "para_716" ] }, { "title": "That response misses the point. If an alien is constructively", "paragraphs": [ "para_718", "para_719", "para_720", "para_721" ] }, { "title": "(“Congress has not specifically defined ‘seeking.’ The term, which functions", "paragraphs": [ "para_723", "para_724" ] }, { "title": "Castañon-Nava v. DHS, 175 F.4th 828, 846 (7th Cir. 2026) (opinion of Lee, J.)", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "(“[P]rominent dictionaries defined the verb ‘to seek’ to mean: ‘to resort to’;", "paragraphs": [ "para_727", "para_728" ] }, { "title": "(“The ordinary meaning of ‘seek’ requires some present, active action on", "paragraphs": [ "para_730" ] }, { "title": "16", "paragraphs": [ "para_732", "para_733" ] }, { "title": "States after accruing a prior period of unlawful presence is … ‘again", "paragraphs": [ "para_735", "para_736", "para_737", "para_738", "para_739", "para_740", "para_741", "para_742" ] }, { "title": "In any event, this case does not require a court to decide when", "paragraphs": [ "para_744", "para_745", "para_746", "para_747", "para_748", "para_749", "para_750" ] }, { "title": "Lemus-Losa, 25 I. & N. Dec. at 743. And that means the detention", "paragraphs": [ "para_752" ] }, { "title": "C", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "It is common—in the immigration context and elsewhere—that", "paragraphs": [ "para_755", "para_756", "para_757", "para_758" ] }, { "title": "The ultimate objective is to determine the meaning the law assigns to", "paragraphs": [ "para_760" ] }, { "title": "17", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "94, 128 (2d Cir. 2021) (Menashi, J., concurring in part and concurring", "paragraphs": [ "para_763" ] }, { "title": "Stephen E. Sachs, The Law of Interpretation, 130 Harv. L. Rev. 1079, 1088", "paragraphs": [ "para_765", "para_766", "para_767", "para_768", "para_769", "para_770", "para_771" ] }, { "title": "To take another illustrative example, a regulation of the", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Department of Transportation determines when an employee has", "paragraphs": [ "para_774", "para_775", "para_776", "para_777", "para_778" ] }, { "title": "(3) “[f]ail to provide a sufficient amount of specimen when directed,”", "paragraphs": [ "para_780", "para_781", "para_782", "para_783", "para_784", "para_785", "para_786", "para_787" ] }, { "title": "F. Supp. 3d 1, 4 (D.D.C. 2025) (explaining that an employee was", "paragraphs": [ "para_789", "para_790", "para_791" ] }, { "title": "18", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "A statute in Massachusetts requires an optometrist registered", "paragraphs": [ "para_794", "para_795", "para_796", "para_797", "para_798", "para_799", "para_800", "para_801" ] }, { "title": "It makes sense that Massachusetts would treat an optometrist", "paragraphs": [ "para_803", "para_804", "para_805", "para_806", "para_807" ] }, { "title": "States without being admitted as if he were seeking a lawful entry to", "paragraphs": [ "para_809", "para_810", "para_811", "para_812", "para_813", "para_814", "para_815" ] }, { "title": "It violates that mandate to refuse to treat that alien as if he were doing", "paragraphs": [ "para_817", "para_818" ] }, { "title": "D", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "The panel offered several other arguments to defend its", "paragraphs": [ "para_821" ] }, { "title": "19", "paragraphs": [ "para_823", "para_824" ] }, { "title": "But that provision indicates that an applicant for admission is", "paragraphs": [ "para_826", "para_827", "para_828", "para_829", "para_830" ] }, { "title": "583 U.S. 281 (2018). But that decision undermines the panel’s", "paragraphs": [ "para_832", "para_833", "para_834", "para_835", "para_836", "para_837", "para_838" ] }, { "title": "1", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "The panel sought support for its interpretation of the detention", "paragraphs": [ "para_841", "para_842" ] }, { "title": "The panel identified 8 U.S.C. § 1225(a)(3), which provides that", "paragraphs": [ "para_844", "para_845", "para_846", "para_847", "para_848", "para_849", "para_850" ] }, { "title": "20", "paragraphs": [ "para_852", "para_853" ] }, { "title": "The panel acknowledged that “the government is correct that", "paragraphs": [ "para_855" ] }, { "title": "Barbosa da Cunha, 175 F.4th at 78. When the librarian says not to", "paragraphs": [ "para_857", "para_858", "para_859", "para_860", "para_861", "para_862", "para_863", "para_864", "para_865" ] }, { "title": "The panel decided that § 1225(a)(3) reflects the latter", "paragraphs": [ "para_867", "para_868", "para_869", "para_870", "para_871", "para_872", "para_873", "para_874", "para_875", "para_876", "para_877" ] }, { "title": "8 Barbosa da Cunha, 175 F.4th at 78 (quoting Or otherwise, Merriam-Webster", "paragraphs": [ "para_879" ] }, { "title": "21", "paragraphs": [ "para_881", "para_882" ] }, { "title": "In fact, a subset-superset relationship is exactly what", "paragraphs": [ "para_884", "para_885", "para_886", "para_887", "para_888", "para_889", "para_890", "para_891", "para_892", "para_893", "para_894", "para_895" ] }, { "title": "The same goes for alien crewmen. With the passage of the", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "(“IIRIRA”), the Immigration and Naturalization Service recognized", "paragraphs": [ "para_899", "para_900" ] }, { "title": "United States.” 10 An arriving alien crewman must be inspected", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "9 Moreover, the panel’s interpretation renders the word “otherwise”", "paragraphs": [ "para_903", "para_904" ] }, { "title": "Guerrero Orellana, 2026 WL 2352042, at *22 (Dunlap, J., dissenting). “It is our", "paragraphs": [ "para_906" ] }, { "title": "United States v. Menasche, 348 U.S. 528, 538-39 (1955) (quoting Inhabitants of", "paragraphs": [ "para_908" ] }, { "title": "10 Inspection of Alien Crewmembers; 90-Day Modified Inspection", "paragraphs": [ "para_910" ] }, { "title": "22", "paragraphs": [ "para_912" ] }, { "title": "8 U.S.C. § 1282(a); see also 8 C.F.R. § 252.1(c) (explaining that an alien", "paragraphs": [ "para_914", "para_915", "para_916", "para_917", "para_918", "para_919", "para_920" ] }, { "title": "(emphasis added). But although the alien crewman is seeking", "paragraphs": [ "para_922", "para_923", "para_924", "para_925", "para_926", "para_927" ] }, { "title": "A similar framework applies to a lawful permanent resident", "paragraphs": [ "para_929", "para_930", "para_931", "para_932", "para_933", "para_934", "para_935" ] }, { "title": "States.” Id. § 1101(a)(13)(C)(ii)-(iii). Those “lawful permanent", "paragraphs": [ "para_937", "para_938", "para_939" ] }, { "title": "The alien who has already been admitted for permanent residence but", "paragraphs": [ "para_941" ] }, { "title": "23", "paragraphs": [ "para_943", "para_944", "para_945" ] }, { "title": "The conclusion of the panel that applicants for admission are", "paragraphs": [ "para_947", "para_948" ] }, { "title": "The treatment of stowaways and crewmen in § 1225 itself illustrates", "paragraphs": [ "para_950", "para_951" ] }, { "title": "That is why the INA refers to aliens “who are applicants for admission", "paragraphs": [ "para_953", "para_954" ] }, { "title": "2", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "The panel suggested that the government’s reading of the", "paragraphs": [ "para_957", "para_958", "para_959", "para_960", "para_961", "para_962", "para_963", "para_964", "para_965", "para_966", "para_967", "para_968" ] }, { "title": "In fact, “there is ‘no canon of interpretation that forbids", "paragraphs": [ "para_970", "para_971" ] }, { "title": "24", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "303). And the exceptions to the detention provision “illustrate that", "paragraphs": [ "para_974" ] }, { "title": "Hernandez Alvarez, 175 F.4th at 1296 (Lagoa, J., dissenting). For", "paragraphs": [ "para_976", "para_977", "para_978", "para_979", "para_980", "para_981", "para_982", "para_983", "para_984", "para_985", "para_986", "para_987" ] }, { "title": "These express exceptions create redundancy because the", "paragraphs": [ "para_989", "para_990", "para_991", "para_992", "para_993" ] }, { "title": "Legislators “sometimes employ overlap or redundancy so as to", "paragraphs": [ "para_995", "para_996", "para_997", "para_998", "para_999", "para_1000", "para_1001" ] }, { "title": "25", "paragraphs": [ "para_1003" ] }, { "title": "USA, Inc., 586 U.S. 334, 346 (2019)).11", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Even so, the panel’s interpretation “creates a far worse", "paragraphs": [ "para_1006" ] }, { "title": "Alvarez, 175 F.4th at 1296 (Lagoa, J., dissenting). At the outset of", "paragraphs": [ "para_1008", "para_1009", "para_1010", "para_1011" ] }, { "title": "Congress proceeded to insert the phrase “seeking admission”", "paragraphs": [ "para_1013", "para_1014", "para_1015" ] }, { "title": "There are two such provisions in § 1225. First, the statute directs", "paragraphs": [ "para_1017", "para_1018", "para_1019" ] }, { "title": "United States.” Id. § 1225(a)(5) (emphasis added). According to the", "paragraphs": [ "para_1021", "para_1022" ] }, { "title": "11 See also Cirrus Rojas, 183 F.4th at 935 (Sykes, J., dissenting) (“[W]hen an", "paragraphs": [ "para_1024", "para_1025", "para_1026", "para_1027", "para_1028", "para_1029" ] }, { "title": "26", "paragraphs": [ "para_1031", "para_1032" ] }, { "title": "Second, the statute directs that “[i]n the case of an alien who is", "paragraphs": [ "para_1034", "para_1035", "para_1036", "para_1037" ] }, { "title": "According to the panel, this provision also does not apply because the", "paragraphs": [ "para_1039", "para_1040", "para_1041", "para_1042", "para_1043", "para_1044", "para_1045" ] }, { "title": "It is true that the term applicant for admission—without an", "paragraphs": [ "para_1047", "para_1048", "para_1049", "para_1050", "para_1051", "para_1052", "para_1053", "para_1054" ] }, { "title": "12 The provision also undermines the panel’s interpretation because in", "paragraphs": [ "para_1056", "para_1057" ] }, { "title": "(Mascott, J., dissenting). This provision clearly does not describe “[a]liens", "paragraphs": [ "para_1059", "para_1060" ] }, { "title": "27", "paragraphs": [ "para_1062", "para_1063", "para_1064", "para_1065", "para_1066", "para_1067" ] }, { "title": "The more sensible view is that the detention provision—just as", "paragraphs": [ "para_1069", "para_1070", "para_1071", "para_1072", "para_1073", "para_1074", "para_1075" ] }, { "title": "F.3d 877, 881 (6th Cir. 2012) (Sutton, J.). “Doublet redundancy in a", "paragraphs": [ "para_1077", "para_1078" ] }, { "title": "Hernandez Alvarez, 175 F.4th at 1297 (Lagoa, J., dissenting). That", "paragraphs": [ "para_1080", "para_1081", "para_1082", "para_1083", "para_1084" ] }, { "title": "3", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "The panel asserted that “the Supreme Court has long", "paragraphs": [ "para_1087" ] }, { "title": "175 F.4th at 84 (citing Jennings, 583 U.S. at 287). That would be big", "paragraphs": [ "para_1089", "para_1090" ] }, { "title": "28", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Louisiana, 590 U.S. 83, 124 n.5 (2020) (Kavanaugh, J., concurring in", "paragraphs": [ "para_1093", "para_1094" ] }, { "title": "In Jennings, the Supreme Court observed that “at the Nation’s", "paragraphs": [ "para_1096", "para_1097" ] }, { "title": "583 U.S. at 287. The Court then described the statutory scheme. It", "paragraphs": [ "para_1099", "para_1100", "para_1101", "para_1102", "para_1103", "para_1104", "para_1105", "para_1106", "para_1107", "para_1108", "para_1109", "para_1110", "para_1111", "para_1112", "para_1113" ] }, { "title": "The Supreme Court has “cautioned that ‘general language in", "paragraphs": [ "para_1115", "para_1116", "para_1117", "para_1118" ] }, { "title": "(quoting Turkiye Halk Bankasi A.S. v. United States, 598 U.S. 264, 278", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "(2023)). And in Jennings the Supreme Court was not considering the", "paragraphs": [ "para_1121" ] }, { "title": "29", "paragraphs": [ "para_1123" ] }, { "title": "The Supreme Court said that the government may “detain certain", "paragraphs": [ "para_1125" ] }, { "title": "(b)(2)” and may “detain certain aliens already in the country pending", "paragraphs": [ "para_1127" ] }, { "title": "Jennings, 583 U.S. at 289. That description is entirely consistent with", "paragraphs": [ "para_1129", "para_1130", "para_1131", "para_1132" ] }, { "title": "Those applicants for admission are also “aliens seeking admission.”", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Only the panel’s question-begging assumption that an applicant for", "paragraphs": [ "para_1135", "para_1136" ] }, { "title": "In fact, Jennings undermines the panel’s argument. The", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Supreme Court said that the detention provision of § 1225(b)(2)", "paragraphs": [ "para_1139", "para_1140" ] }, { "title": "The panel agrees that Barbosa da Cunha is (1) an applicant for", "paragraphs": [ "para_1142", "para_1143", "para_1144", "para_1145", "para_1146", "para_1147", "para_1148" ] }, { "title": "Jennings explained that “applicants for admission fall into one of two", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "30", "paragraphs": [ "para_1151", "para_1152" ] }, { "title": "The panel assumed that the distinction was that § 1225 applies", "paragraphs": [ "para_1154", "para_1155", "para_1156", "para_1157", "para_1158", "para_1159", "para_1160", "para_1161", "para_1162", "para_1163", "para_1164", "para_1165", "para_1166", "para_1167" ] }, { "title": "(quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5)(A)). Rather than endorsing the", "paragraphs": [ "para_1169", "para_1170" ] }, { "title": "13 The Jennings approach under which all applicants for admission are", "paragraphs": [ "para_1172", "para_1173", "para_1174", "para_1175", "para_1176", "para_1177" ] }, { "title": "14 The Immigration and Naturalization Service estimated that “[a]bout 2.1", "paragraphs": [ "para_1179", "para_1180", "para_1181" ] }, { "title": "31", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "4", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "The panel claimed that “the Executive Branch has for nearly", "paragraphs": [ "para_1185", "para_1186", "para_1187", "para_1188", "para_1189", "para_1190", "para_1191" ] }, { "title": "394.15", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "At the same time, “a ‘long-established practice’ does not justify", "paragraphs": [ "para_1194" ] }, { "title": "Exceptional Child Ctr., Inc., 575 U.S. 320, 329 (2015). The panel", "paragraphs": [ "para_1196", "para_1197", "para_1198", "para_1199", "para_1200" ] }, { "title": "Bostock v. Clayton County, 590 U.S. 644, 654-55 (2020)). In Bostock, the", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Department of Justice, Illegal Alien Resident Population (last modified", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Aug. 11, 1999), https://perma.cc/QV9N-FP73. So the population of admitted", "paragraphs": [ "para_1204", "para_1205", "para_1206" ] }, { "title": "2026 WL 100761, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 14, 2026) (identifying the categories of", "paragraphs": [ "para_1208" ] }, { "title": "15 See also Aditya Bamzai, The Origins of Judicial Deference to Executive", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Interpretation, 126 Yale L.J. 908, 916 (2017) (“Under the traditional", "paragraphs": [ "para_1211", "para_1212", "para_1213" ] }, { "title": "32", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Supreme Court “did not hesitate to reject what had been the decades-", "paragraphs": [ "para_1216", "para_1217" ] }, { "title": "Campos, 175 F.4th at 758 (Murphy, J., dissenting). So a longstanding", "paragraphs": [ "para_1219" ] }, { "title": "In this case, however, the evidence on which the panel relied", "paragraphs": [ "para_1221", "para_1222", "para_1223", "para_1224", "para_1225", "para_1226", "para_1227", "para_1228", "para_1229", "para_1230", "para_1231", "para_1232", "para_1233", "para_1234" ] }, { "title": "But that conclusion contradicts the actual rule that the INS", "paragraphs": [ "para_1236", "para_1237", "para_1238" ] }, { "title": "United States”—that is, an unadmitted illegal alien—who has not", "paragraphs": [ "para_1240" ] }, { "title": "16 Inspection and Expedited Removal of Aliens; Detention and Removal of", "paragraphs": [ "para_1242", "para_1243" ] }, { "title": "33", "paragraphs": [ "para_1245", "para_1246", "para_1247", "para_1248", "para_1249", "para_1250", "para_1251" ] }, { "title": "United States continuously for the 2-year period immediately prior to", "paragraphs": [ "para_1253", "para_1254" ] }, { "title": "Section 235(b)(1) of the INA is the expedited removal provision", "paragraphs": [ "para_1256" ] }, { "title": "An alien who was not inspected and admitted or paroled", "paragraphs": [ "para_1258", "para_1259" ] }, { "title": "States for the 2-year period immediately prior to the date", "paragraphs": [ "para_1261", "para_1262", "para_1263" ] }, { "title": "Id. (emphasis added). Section 235(b)(2) of the INA is the detention", "paragraphs": [ "para_1265", "para_1266", "para_1267", "para_1268", "para_1269", "para_1270", "para_1271", "para_1272", "para_1273", "para_1274", "para_1275" ] }, { "title": "34", "paragraphs": [ "para_1277", "para_1278", "para_1279", "para_1280" ] }, { "title": "1200 (Bea, J., dissenting). The understanding the executive branch", "paragraphs": [ "para_1282" ] }, { "title": "The panel assumed that because an unadmitted illegal alien", "paragraphs": [ "para_1284", "para_1285", "para_1286", "para_1287", "para_1288", "para_1289" ] }, { "title": "What to make of the sentence in the commentary", "paragraphs": [ "para_1291", "para_1292", "para_1293", "para_1294", "para_1295" ] }, { "title": "Court have recognized that “[d]ue to consistent and significant", "paragraphs": [ "para_1297", "para_1298", "para_1299", "para_1300" ] }, { "title": "States v. Texas, 599 U.S. 670, 679 (2023), and the Supreme Court has", "paragraphs": [ "para_1302" ] }, { "title": "17 Biden v. Texas, 597 U.S. 785, 792 (2022) (quoting DHS, Explanation of the", "paragraphs": [ "para_1304", "para_1305" ] }, { "title": "35", "paragraphs": [ "para_1307" ] }, { "title": "Supreme Court has expressly reserved judgment on “whether the", "paragraphs": [ "para_1309", "para_1310", "para_1311" ] }, { "title": "That question is not before us in this case, which concerns", "paragraphs": [ "para_1313", "para_1314", "para_1315", "para_1316", "para_1317", "para_1318", "para_1319", "para_1320", "para_1321", "para_1322" ] }, { "title": "5", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "To justify its counterintuitive reading of the detention", "paragraphs": [ "para_1325" ] }, { "title": "Pursuant to the canon, “[w]hen ‘a serious doubt’ is raised about the", "paragraphs": [ "para_1327", "para_1328", "para_1329" ] }, { "title": "U.S. at 296 (quoting Crowell v. Benson, 285 U.S. 22, 62 (1932)). The panel", "paragraphs": [ "para_1331", "para_1332", "para_1333" ] }, { "title": "The panel said that the government’s interpretation raises", "paragraphs": [ "para_1335" ] }, { "title": "36", "paragraphs": [ "para_1337", "para_1338", "para_1339", "para_1340", "para_1341" ] }, { "title": "U.S. at 286). The panel saw “no basis for subjecting all noncitizens in", "paragraphs": [ "para_1343", "para_1344" ] }, { "title": "Petitioner to unconstitutionally prolonged detention” because his", "paragraphs": [ "para_1346", "para_1347", "para_1348", "para_1349", "para_1350", "para_1351", "para_1352", "para_1353" ] }, { "title": "I will address the panel’s concerns in reverse order. First, “[i]t is well", "paragraphs": [ "para_1355", "para_1356", "para_1357" ] }, { "title": "865 F.3d 123, 136 (2d Cir. 2017) (Katzman, C.J., concurring in part and", "paragraphs": [ "para_1359" ] }, { "title": "2008)). The panel did not and could not say otherwise. But the panel", "paragraphs": [ "para_1361", "para_1362", "para_1363", "para_1364", "para_1365", "para_1366" ] }, { "title": "37", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Second, to support its view that the government’s", "paragraphs": [ "para_1369", "para_1370" ] }, { "title": "Supreme Court said that detention pursuant to § 1226(c)—another", "paragraphs": [ "para_1372", "para_1373", "para_1374", "para_1375" ] }, { "title": "Court explained that proceedings against ‘criminal aliens’ are", "paragraphs": [ "para_1377", "para_1378" ] }, { "title": "175 F.4th at 95 (quoting Demore, 538 U.S. at 530 n.13). The panel then", "paragraphs": [ "para_1380", "para_1381", "para_1382", "para_1383", "para_1384", "para_1385", "para_1386" ] }, { "title": "There are three problems with the panel’s analysis. The first", "paragraphs": [ "para_1388" ] }, { "title": "The government maintains a priority calendar for detained aliens, so", "paragraphs": [ "para_1390", "para_1391" ] }, { "title": "1983,” the Executive Office for Immigration Review “has prioritized", "paragraphs": [ "para_1393" ] }, { "title": "18 The Vera Institute of Justice is a think tank that aims “[t]o end the", "paragraphs": [ "para_1395", "para_1396", "para_1397" ] }, { "title": "38", "paragraphs": [ "para_1399", "para_1400", "para_1401", "para_1402", "para_1403", "para_1404" ] }, { "title": "Accountability Office “records the actual ‘median number of days", "paragraphs": [ "para_1406" ] }, { "title": "2016 through 2023. In 2023 it was 47 days; in 2022 it was 50 days; in", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "2021 it was 50 days; in 2020 it was 92 days; in 2019 it was 52 days; in", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "2018 it was 39 days; and in 2017 it was 40 days.”21", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "As in Demore, the government prioritizes removal proceedings", "paragraphs": [ "para_1411", "para_1412" ] }, { "title": "526. If in the future the government were unable to maintain its", "paragraphs": [ "para_1414", "para_1415", "para_1416", "para_1417", "para_1418", "para_1419", "para_1420" ] }, { "title": "Department of Justice, PM 25-47: Case Priorities and Immigration Court", "paragraphs": [ "para_1422" ] }, { "title": "20 Id. (alteration omitted) (quoting Executive Office for Immigration", "paragraphs": [ "para_1424" ] }, { "title": "21 Id. (alteration and footnote omitted) (quoting Government", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Accountability Office, GAO-25-106867: Immigration Courts: Actions", "paragraphs": [ "para_1427", "para_1428" ] }, { "title": "39", "paragraphs": [ "para_1430", "para_1431", "para_1432", "para_1433" ] }, { "title": "The second problem is that the panel misunderstood the", "paragraphs": [ "para_1435", "para_1436", "para_1437" ] }, { "title": "(2001), did raise such concerns:", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "In Demore v. Kim, we distinguished § 1226(c) from the", "paragraphs": [ "para_1440", "para_1441", "para_1442", "para_1443", "para_1444", "para_1445", "para_1446", "para_1447", "para_1448", "para_1449", "para_1450", "para_1451" ] }, { "title": "(quoting Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 690-91). The fact that a § 1226(c)", "paragraphs": [ "para_1453", "para_1454", "para_1455", "para_1456", "para_1457", "para_1458", "para_1459" ] }, { "title": "40", "paragraphs": [ "para_1461", "para_1462" ] }, { "title": "The panel sought to recast Demore as if it announced a", "paragraphs": [ "para_1464" ] }, { "title": "The Court in Demore expressly held, however, that a mandatory", "paragraphs": [ "para_1466", "para_1467", "para_1468", "para_1469", "para_1470", "para_1471", "para_1472" ] }, { "title": "The detention provision in this case, § 1225(b)(2), authorizes", "paragraphs": [ "para_1474", "para_1475", "para_1476" ] }, { "title": "Demore, 538 U.S. at 529. The holding of Demore—that mandatory", "paragraphs": [ "para_1478", "para_1479" ] }, { "title": "The third problem is that our circuit’s case law has already", "paragraphs": [ "para_1481", "para_1482" ] }, { "title": "Decker, 103 F.4th 133, 138 (2d Cir. 2024). Even assuming that our court", "paragraphs": [ "para_1484", "para_1485", "para_1486" ] }, { "title": "22 But see Genalo v. Black, No. 25-886, 2026 WL 1718025 (U.S. June 15, 2026)", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "(granting certiorari on the question), appeal dismissed per stipulation, 2026 WL", "paragraphs": [ "para_1489" ] }, { "title": "41", "paragraphs": [ "para_1491", "para_1492", "para_1493", "para_1494", "para_1495" ] }, { "title": "192 (Chin & Carney, JJ., statement in support of the denial of", "paragraphs": [ "para_1497", "para_1498" ] }, { "title": "Our court did not say that the mandatory detention statute was", "paragraphs": [ "para_1500", "para_1501", "para_1502" ] }, { "title": "183 F.4th at 121 (“[I]n the event that removal proceedings involving a", "paragraphs": [ "para_1504", "para_1505", "para_1506", "para_1507" ] }, { "title": "Velasco Lopez v. Decker, 978 F.3d 842, 852 (2d Cir. 2020)). The", "paragraphs": [ "para_1509", "para_1510", "para_1511", "para_1512", "para_1513", "para_1514", "para_1515" ] }, { "title": "Third, the panel said that a statute that subjects aliens such as", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Barbosa da Cunha to “categorical detention without bond” would", "paragraphs": [ "para_1518", "para_1519", "para_1520" ] }, { "title": "42", "paragraphs": [ "para_1522", "para_1523", "para_1524", "para_1525" ] }, { "title": "This argument proves too much. The panel did not dispute that", "paragraphs": [ "para_1527", "para_1528", "para_1529" ] }, { "title": "2030067, at *2 (W.D.N.Y. July 13, 2026) (concluding that even under", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Barbosa da Cunha “aliens who were encountered at or near the border”", "paragraphs": [ "para_1532", "para_1533", "para_1534", "para_1535", "para_1536", "para_1537", "para_1538", "para_1539", "para_1540", "para_1541" ] }, { "title": "Underlying the panel opinion is the suspicion that § 1225(b)(2)", "paragraphs": [ "para_1543", "para_1544", "para_1545", "para_1546" ] }, { "title": "175 F.4th at 94-95 (internal quotation marks, alteration, and citation", "paragraphs": [ "para_1548", "para_1549", "para_1550", "para_1551" ] }, { "title": "43", "paragraphs": [ "para_1553", "para_1554" ] }, { "title": "That is an extraordinary suggestion—and it is obviously", "paragraphs": [ "para_1556", "para_1557" ] }, { "title": "531. Congress may constitutionally require the continued detention", "paragraphs": [ "para_1559", "para_1560", "para_1561", "para_1562", "para_1563" ] }, { "title": "Landon, 342 U.S. 524, 543 (1952)). The “Court’s longstanding view” is", "paragraphs": [ "para_1565", "para_1566" ] }, { "title": "Id. at 526. Congress does not need to mandate individualized", "paragraphs": [ "para_1568", "para_1569" ] }, { "title": "The panel might prefer even more individualized hearings than the", "paragraphs": [ "para_1571", "para_1572", "para_1573", "para_1574", "para_1575", "para_1576" ] }, { "title": "The panel failed to establish a plausible constitutional concern", "paragraphs": [ "para_1578", "para_1579", "para_1580", "para_1581", "para_1582" ] }, { "title": "44", "paragraphs": [ "para_1584", "para_1585", "para_1586", "para_1587" ] }, { "title": "II", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "The second basic error of the panel was to exercise habeas", "paragraphs": [ "para_1590", "para_1591", "para_1592" ] }, { "title": "2025). But his habeas petition did not challenge the authority of the", "paragraphs": [ "para_1594", "para_1595", "para_1596", "para_1597" ] }, { "title": "70. He then filed a habeas petition asking a federal court to order the", "paragraphs": [ "para_1599", "para_1600", "para_1601", "para_1602", "para_1603", "para_1604", "para_1605", "para_1606", "para_1607" ] }, { "title": "The Supreme Court has identified cases in which “the nature of", "paragraphs": [ "para_1609", "para_1610", "para_1611" ] }, { "title": "45", "paragraphs": [ "para_1613", "para_1614", "para_1615", "para_1616", "para_1617", "para_1618", "para_1619", "para_1620", "para_1621" ] }, { "title": "Allowing an alien to bring such a claim in habeas “would", "paragraphs": [ "para_1623" ] }, { "title": "Wilkinson, 544 U.S. at 85 (Scalia, J., concurring). And it would", "paragraphs": [ "para_1625", "para_1626", "para_1627", "para_1628", "para_1629" ] }, { "title": "Constitution.” Thuraissigiam, 591 U.S. at 117 n.13 (internal quotation", "paragraphs": [ "para_1631", "para_1632", "para_1633" ] }, { "title": "A", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "At the founding, the writ of habeas corpus “simply provided a", "paragraphs": [ "para_1636" ] }, { "title": "23 His petition asked the district court to “[i]ssue a Writ of Habeas Corpus", "paragraphs": [ "para_1638", "para_1639", "para_1640", "para_1641" ] }, { "title": "46", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Id. at 117 (emphasis added). “Blackstone wrote that habeas was a", "paragraphs": [ "para_1644" ] }, { "title": "(alteration omitted) (quoting 3 William Blackstone, Commentaries", "paragraphs": [ "para_1646", "para_1647", "para_1648", "para_1649" ] }, { "title": "States § 1333, at 206 (1833)). Habeas allowed a detainee to challenge", "paragraphs": [ "para_1651" ] }, { "title": "While the availability of the writ has expanded since the", "paragraphs": [ "para_1653", "para_1654" ] }, { "title": "Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 (1973) (“It is clear … from the common-", "paragraphs": [ "para_1656", "para_1657", "para_1658", "para_1659" ] }, { "title": "To understand Barbosa da Cunha as seeking habeas relief", "paragraphs": [ "para_1661", "para_1662" ] }, { "title": "107 (quoting Boumediene, 553 U.S. at 746). “Indeed, [Barbosa da", "paragraphs": [ "para_1664" ] }, { "title": "Habeas has traditionally been a means to secure release from unlawful", "paragraphs": [ "para_1666", "para_1667", "para_1668", "para_1669", "para_1670", "para_1671" ] }, { "title": "47", "paragraphs": [ "para_1673", "para_1674", "para_1675", "para_1676" ] }, { "title": "In requesting this relief, Barbosa da Cunha resembles the", "paragraphs": [ "para_1678", "para_1679", "para_1680", "para_1681", "para_1682" ] }, { "title": "Id. In his brief, the detainee stated “that ‘he requests an entirely", "paragraphs": [ "para_1684", "para_1685", "para_1686", "para_1687", "para_1688", "para_1689", "para_1690" ] }, { "title": "Id. (internal quotation marks, alterations, and citation omitted). The", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Court concluded that, historically, “the writ has never encompassed", "paragraphs": [ "para_1693" ] }, { "title": "The cases that have addressed challenges to conditions of", "paragraphs": [ "para_1695", "para_1696", "para_1697", "para_1698", "para_1699" ] }, { "title": "48", "paragraphs": [ "para_1701", "para_1702" ] }, { "title": "Wilkinson, 544 U.S. at 84 (citing Cooper v. Pate, 378 U.S. 546 (1964), and", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Wilwording v. Swenson, 404 U.S. 249, 251 (1971)). So the Court has", "paragraphs": [ "para_1705", "para_1706" ] }, { "title": "76 (emphasis added).26", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Justice Scalia wrote separately in Wilkinson to “note that a", "paragraphs": [ "para_1709", "para_1710", "para_1711", "para_1712", "para_1713", "para_1714", "para_1715" ] }, { "title": "25 See Ziglar v. Abbasi, 582 U.S. 120, 144 (2017) (“[W]e have left open the", "paragraphs": [ "para_1717", "para_1718" ] }, { "title": "U.S. 520, 526 n.6 (1979) (“[W]e leave to another day the question of the", "paragraphs": [ "para_1720", "para_1721", "para_1722" ] }, { "title": "26 See also Nelson v. Campbell, 541 U.S. 637, 643 (2004) (“[C]onstitutional", "paragraphs": [ "para_1724", "para_1725", "para_1726" ] }, { "title": "Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S. 749, 750 (2004) (“Federal law opens two main", "paragraphs": [ "para_1728", "para_1729", "para_1730", "para_1731", "para_1732" ] }, { "title": "49", "paragraphs": [ "para_1734", "para_1735", "para_1736" ] }, { "title": "Our court has suggested an answer to the question that the", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Supreme Court has reserved. We have held that “at least where a", "paragraphs": [ "para_1739", "para_1740", "para_1741" ] }, { "title": "08 (2d Cir. 2025) (second emphasis added). That holding confined", "paragraphs": [ "para_1743", "para_1744", "para_1745", "para_1746", "para_1747", "para_1748" ] }, { "title": "27 See Hope v. Warden York Cnty. Prison, 972 F.3d 310, 324-25 (3d Cir. 2020)", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "(“We are satisfied that their § 2241 claim seeking only release on the basis", "paragraphs": [ "para_1751" ] }, { "title": "Timms v. Attorney General, 93 F.4th 187, 191 n.8 (4th Cir. 2024) (“The", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Supreme Court has not yet decided whether detainees can challenge their", "paragraphs": [ "para_1754", "para_1755", "para_1756" ] }, { "title": "Haynes, 774 F.3d 467, 470 (8th Cir. 2014) (“Spencer’s constitutional claim", "paragraphs": [ "para_1758", "para_1759" ] }, { "title": "Nettles v. Grounds, 830 F.3d 922, 930 (9th Cir. 2016) (“We read these", "paragraphs": [ "para_1761", "para_1762", "para_1763", "para_1764" ] }, { "title": "50", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "B", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "One might compare the relief the district court ordered to a writ", "paragraphs": [ "para_1768", "para_1769" ] }, { "title": "403 (1993) (“The typical relief granted in federal habeas corpus is a", "paragraphs": [ "para_1771", "para_1772" ] }, { "title": "See Barbosa da Cunha, 175 F.4th at 70 (“The district court granted the", "paragraphs": [ "para_1774", "para_1775", "para_1776", "para_1777", "para_1778", "para_1779", "para_1780", "para_1781", "para_1782", "para_1783", "para_1784" ] }, { "title": "Cunha made that sort of request here. Even though his request was", "paragraphs": [ "para_1786", "para_1787", "para_1788", "para_1789", "para_1790", "para_1791", "para_1792" ] }, { "title": "By awarding such relief, a district court is directing how the", "paragraphs": [ "para_1794" ] }, { "title": "51", "paragraphs": [ "para_1796", "para_1797" ] }, { "title": "Barbosa da Cunha challenges the manner of administration rather", "paragraphs": [ "para_1799", "para_1800", "para_1801", "para_1802", "para_1803" ] }, { "title": "Second, a prisoner detained pursuant to an unlawful conviction", "paragraphs": [ "para_1805", "para_1806", "para_1807", "para_1808", "para_1809" ] }, { "title": "87 (Scalia, J., concurring). In other words, “the prisoner who shows", "paragraphs": [ "para_1811", "para_1812", "para_1813", "para_1814", "para_1815", "para_1816" ] }, { "title": "Barbosa da Cunha occupies a very different position. When he", "paragraphs": [ "para_1818", "para_1819", "para_1820", "para_1821", "para_1822", "para_1823", "para_1824", "para_1825" ] }, { "title": "52", "paragraphs": [ "para_1827", "para_1828" ] }, { "title": "In other words, if Barbosa da Cunha prevailed on the", "paragraphs": [ "para_1830", "para_1831", "para_1832", "para_1833", "para_1834", "para_1835", "para_1836", "para_1837", "para_1838" ] }, { "title": "General’s decision, see id. § 1226(e) (“The Attorney General’s", "paragraphs": [ "para_1840", "para_1841", "para_1842", "para_1843", "para_1844", "para_1845" ] }, { "title": "Barbosa da Cunha does not resemble the prisoner who receives", "paragraphs": [ "para_1847", "para_1848", "para_1849", "para_1850", "para_1851", "para_1852", "para_1853", "para_1854", "para_1855", "para_1856" ] }, { "title": "53", "paragraphs": [ "para_1858", "para_1859", "para_1860", "para_1861", "para_1862", "para_1863" ] }, { "title": "C", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "In this litigation, Barbosa da Cunha has sought to use the writ", "paragraphs": [ "para_1866", "para_1867" ] }, { "title": "(majority opinion). One prisoner, Dotson, “began to serve a life", "paragraphs": [ "para_1869", "para_1870", "para_1871", "para_1872" ] }, { "title": "1998, after Dotson began to serve his term.” Id. at 76-77. Dotson", "paragraphs": [ "para_1874", "para_1875" ] }, { "title": "Facto and Due Process Clauses.” Id. at 77. He asked a federal district", "paragraphs": [ "para_1877", "para_1878", "para_1879", "para_1880", "para_1881", "para_1882", "para_1883", "para_1884" ] }, { "title": "The Supreme Court upheld the reversal of that decision, holding that", "paragraphs": [ "para_1886" ] }, { "title": "54", "paragraphs": [ "para_1888", "para_1889", "para_1890", "para_1891", "para_1892" ] }, { "title": "Dotson does not mean immediate release from confinement or a", "paragraphs": [ "para_1894", "para_1895" ] }, { "title": "Likewise, “[s]uccess for Johnson means at most a new parole hearing", "paragraphs": [ "para_1897", "para_1898", "para_1899", "para_1900" ] }, { "title": "The Court held that the prisoners’ claims were not properly", "paragraphs": [ "para_1902", "para_1903", "para_1904", "para_1905", "para_1906" ] }, { "title": "Supreme Court concluded that § 1983 rather than habeas was the", "paragraphs": [ "para_1908", "para_1909", "para_1910", "para_1911" ] }, { "title": "The panel opinion contradicts Wilkinson and subsequent", "paragraphs": [ "para_1913", "para_1914", "para_1915", "para_1916" ] }, { "title": "55", "paragraphs": [ "para_1918", "para_1919" ] }, { "title": "D", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "The distinction between habeas relief, on the one hand, and", "paragraphs": [ "para_1922" ] }, { "title": "First, the Suspension Clause restricts the authority of Congress", "paragraphs": [ "para_1924" ] }, { "title": "U.S. at 771 (“If the privilege of habeas corpus is to be denied to the", "paragraphs": [ "para_1926", "para_1927", "para_1928", "para_1929", "para_1930", "para_1931" ] }, { "title": "Congress to withdraw jurisdiction over non-habeas claims such as", "paragraphs": [ "para_1933", "para_1934", "para_1935", "para_1936" ] }, { "title": "Second, if a petitioner prevails on a habeas claim, then he is", "paragraphs": [ "para_1938", "para_1939", "para_1940", "para_1941" ] }, { "title": "28 See, e.g., Demore, 538 U.S. at 537 (O’Connor, J., concurring in part and", "paragraphs": [ "para_1943", "para_1944", "para_1945", "para_1946" ] }, { "title": "56", "paragraphs": [ "para_1948", "para_1949", "para_1950", "para_1951" ] }, { "title": "When the decision to award relief depends on equitable", "paragraphs": [ "para_1953", "para_1954", "para_1955" ] }, { "title": "(1883). The “equity tradition” has “developed a series of doctrines to", "paragraphs": [ "para_1957" ] }, { "title": "Among those doctrines is the principle that “[i]t is not within the", "paragraphs": [ "para_1959", "para_1960", "para_1961", "para_1962" ] }, { "title": "29 While a remedy such as mandamus is legal, the right to such a remedy", "paragraphs": [ "para_1964", "para_1965" ] }, { "title": "96 (1924) (“Although classed as a legal remedy, in issuing it a court must be", "paragraphs": [ "para_1967" ] }, { "title": "Lane, 249 U.S. 367, 371 (1919) (“This court has lately said that while", "paragraphs": [ "para_1969", "para_1970", "para_1971", "para_1972", "para_1973", "para_1974" ] }, { "title": "31 See 1 John Norton Pomeroy, A Treatise on Equitable Remedies § 337, at", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "595 (1905) (“[C]ourts hesitate to interfere with the executive branch of the", "paragraphs": [ "para_1977", "para_1978", "para_1979" ] }, { "title": "57", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "In this case, even the panel agreed that Barbosa da Cunha was", "paragraphs": [ "para_1982", "para_1983", "para_1984", "para_1985", "para_1986", "para_1987", "para_1988", "para_1989", "para_1990" ] }, { "title": "(Scalia, J., concurring). “An injunction is an exercise of a court’s", "paragraphs": [ "para_1992", "para_1993", "para_1994", "para_1995", "para_1996", "para_1997", "para_1998" ] }, { "title": "20 N.E. 700, 701 (Ind. 1889)); Sheridan v. Colvin, 78 Ill. 237, 247 (1875) (“It is", "paragraphs": [ "para_2000", "para_2001", "para_2002", "para_2003", "para_2004", "para_2005" ] }, { "title": "32 Cf. FS Credit Opportunities Corp. v. Saba Cap. Master Fund, Ltd., 146", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "S. Ct. 1546, 1553 (2026) (“To create a private right, a statute must use rights-", "paragraphs": [ "para_2008" ] }, { "title": "Language that focuses on the person regulated rather than the individuals", "paragraphs": [ "para_2010", "para_2011" ] }, { "title": "58", "paragraphs": [ "para_2013" ] }, { "title": "The Constitution requires special caution before a court orders", "paragraphs": [ "para_2015", "para_2016", "para_2017", "para_2018", "para_2019", "para_2020" ] }, { "title": "U.S. 387, 397 (2012)). By entertaining a request for injunctive relief", "paragraphs": [ "para_2022", "para_2023", "para_2024", "para_2025" ] }, { "title": "E", "paragraphs": [ "para_2027", "para_2028", "para_2029" ] }, { "title": "United States, 512 U.S. 452, 464 (1994) (Scalia, J., concurring). “While", "paragraphs": [ "para_2031", "para_2032" ] }, { "title": "TransCare Corp., 81 F.4th 37, 61 (2d Cir. 2023) (Menashi, J., dissenting", "paragraphs": [ "para_2034" ] }, { "title": "U.S. 371, 376, 380 (2020)), and we “have ‘discretion to consider", "paragraphs": [ "para_2036", "para_2037" ] }, { "title": "Gomez, 877 F.3d 76, 95 (2d Cir. 2017)). “[W]e have exercised our", "paragraphs": [ "para_2039", "para_2040", "para_2041" ] }, { "title": "Corp., 79 F.4th 206, 232 n.25 (2d Cir. 2023) (alteration omitted) (quoting", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "59", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Sniado v. Bank Aus. AG, 378 F.3d 210, 213 (2d Cir. 2004)). The habeas", "paragraphs": [ "para_2045", "para_2046" ] }, { "title": "The courts of appeals will rehear a case en banc and seek", "paragraphs": [ "para_2048", "para_2049", "para_2050" ] }, { "title": "Congress “deemed” an “alien present in the United States who", "paragraphs": [ "para_2052", "para_2053", "para_2054", "para_2055", "para_2056", "para_2057" ] }, { "title": "If we follow that statutory directive, this case becomes", "paragraphs": [ "para_2059", "para_2060", "para_2061", "para_2062" ] }, { "title": "33 See, e.g., United States v. Campbell, 26 F.4th 860, 865 (11th Cir. 2022) (noting", "paragraphs": [ "para_2064", "para_2065", "para_2066" ] }, { "title": "2021) (noting that “[i]n considering the petition for rehearing en banc, we", "paragraphs": [ "para_2068", "para_2069", "para_2070" ] }, { "title": "787 (8th Cir. 2017) (noting that for the en banc rehearing, “[t]he parties", "paragraphs": [ "para_2072", "para_2073" ] }, { "title": "60", "paragraphs": [ "para_2075", "para_2076" ] }, { "title": "The panel avoided that straightforward result by artificially", "paragraphs": [ "para_2078" ] }, { "title": "According to the panel, an unadmitted illegal alien will be deemed to", "paragraphs": [ "para_2080", "para_2081", "para_2082", "para_2083", "para_2084", "para_2085", "para_2086", "para_2087", "para_2088", "para_2089", "para_2090" ] }, { "title": "The panel dressed up its atextual interpretation of the INA with", "paragraphs": [ "para_2092", "para_2093", "para_2094", "para_2095" ] }, { "title": "F.4th at 935 (Sykes, J., dissenting). The panel insisted that its reliance", "paragraphs": [ "para_2097", "para_2098", "para_2099", "para_2100", "para_2101", "para_2102" ] }, { "title": "61", "paragraphs": [ "para_2104" ] }, { "title": "J., dissenting). The panel’s opinion “is like a pirate ship. It sails under", "paragraphs": [ "para_2106", "para_2107", "para_2108", "para_2109", "para_2110", "para_2111", "para_2112", "para_2113", "para_2114" ] }, { "title": "Rather than follow the express directive of Congress to treat an", "paragraphs": [ "para_2116", "para_2117", "para_2118", "para_2119", "para_2120", "para_2121", "para_2122" ] }, { "title": "175 F.4th at 93. It concluded that Congress cannot achieve such a", "paragraphs": [ "para_2124", "para_2125" ] }, { "title": "Whatever has improbably broad, deeply serious, and apparently", "paragraphs": [ "para_2127" ] }, { "title": "(Scalia, J., concurring in the judgment). In my view, “policy concerns", "paragraphs": [ "para_2129", "para_2130" ] }, { "title": "I would rehear this case en banc to give effect to the deeming", "paragraphs": [ "para_2132", "para_2133" ] }, { "title": "62", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "President.” Bostock, 590 U.S. at 654. The decision of the panel to", "paragraphs": [ "para_2136", "para_2137", "para_2138", "para_2139", "para_2140", "para_2141", "para_2142" ] }, { "title": "85 (Scalia, J., concurring). Because the court declines to correct these", "paragraphs": [ "para_2144" ] }, { "title": "Barbosa da Cunha v. Freden", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "No. 25-3141", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Separate Statement of José A. Cabranes, Senior Circuit Judge", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "As a senior judge, I am not authorized to vote on motions for en banc review. That said, I", "paragraphs": [ "para_2149", "para_2150" ] } ], "paragraphs": [ { "text": "25-3141", "paragraph_id": "para_1" }, { "text": "Barbosa da Cunha v. Freden", "paragraph_id": "para_2" }, { "text": "United States Court of Appeals", "paragraph_id": "para_3" }, { "text": "FOR THE", "paragraph_id": "para_4" }, { "text": "SECOND CIRCUIT", "paragraph_id": "para_5" }, { "text": "ORDER", "paragraph_id": "para_6" }, { "text": "At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second", "paragraph_id": "para_7" }, { "text": "Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square,", "paragraph_id": "para_8" }, { "text": "in the City of New York, on the 25th day of September, two thousand twenty-six.", "paragraph_id": "para_9" }, { "text": "Present:", "paragraph_id": "para_10" }, { "text": "RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR.,", "paragraph_id": "para_11" }, { "text": "Chief Judge,", "paragraph_id": "para_12" }, { "text": "RICHARD J. SULLIVAN,", "paragraph_id": "para_13" }, { "text": "JOSEPH F. BIANCO,", "paragraph_id": "para_14" }, { "text": "MICHAEL H. PARK,", "paragraph_id": "para_15" }, { "text": "WILLIAM J. NARDINI,", "paragraph_id": "para_16" }, { "text": "STEVEN J. MENASHI,", "paragraph_id": "para_17" }, { "text": "EUNICE C. LEE,", "paragraph_id": "para_18" }, { "text": "BETH ROBINSON,", "paragraph_id": "para_19" }, { "text": "MYRNA PÉREZ,", "paragraph_id": "para_20" }, { "text": "ALISON J. NATHAN,", "paragraph_id": "para_21" }, { "text": "SARAH A. L. MERRIAM,", "paragraph_id": "para_22" }, { "text": "MARIA ARAÚJO KAHN,", "paragraph_id": "para_23" }, { "text": "MATTHEW A. SCHWARTZ,", "paragraph_id": "para_24" }, { "text": "Circuit Judges.", "paragraph_id": "para_25" }, { "text": "Ricardo Aparecido Barbosa Da Cunha,", "paragraph_id": "para_26" }, { "text": "Petitioner-Appellee,", "paragraph_id": "para_27" }, { "text": "v. 25-3141", "paragraph_id": "para_28" }, { "text": "2", "paragraph_id": "para_29" }, { "text": "Joseph E. Freden, Deputy Field Office Director, U.S.", "paragraph_id": "para_30" }, { "text": "Immigration and Customs Enforcement,", "paragraph_id": "para_31" }, { "text": "Respondent-Appellant.", "paragraph_id": "para_32" }, { "text": "_____________________________________", "paragraph_id": "para_33" }, { "text": "For Respondent-Appellant: Tiberius T. Davis, Counsel to the Assistant", "paragraph_id": "para_34" }, { "text": "Attorney General (Brett A. Shumate,", "paragraph_id": "para_35" }, { "text": "Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division,", "paragraph_id": "para_36" }, { "text": "Yaakov M. Roth, Principal Deputy Assistant", "paragraph_id": "para_37" }, { "text": "Attorney General, Drew C. Ensign, Deputy", "paragraph_id": "para_38" }, { "text": "Assistant Attorney General, Benjamin", "paragraph_id": "para_39" }, { "text": "Hayes, Senior Counsel to the Assistant", "paragraph_id": "para_40" }, { "text": "Attorney General, Stephen J. Flynn,", "paragraph_id": "para_41" }, { "text": "Assistant Director, Jessica R. Lesnau, Trial", "paragraph_id": "para_42" }, { "text": "Attorney, on the brief), U.S. Department of", "paragraph_id": "para_43" }, { "text": "Justice, Washington, DC.", "paragraph_id": "para_44" }, { "text": "For Petitioner-Appellee: Michael K.T. Tan, American Civil Liberties", "paragraph_id": "para_45" }, { "text": "Union Foundation, San Francisco, CA (My", "paragraph_id": "para_46" }, { "text": "Khanh Ngo, Oscar Sarabia Roman,", "paragraph_id": "para_47" }, { "text": "American Civil Liberties Union Foundation,", "paragraph_id": "para_48" }, { "text": "San Francisco, CA, Judy Rabinovitz, Natalie", "paragraph_id": "para_49" }, { "text": "Behr, American Civil Liberties Union", "paragraph_id": "para_50" }, { "text": "Foundation, New York, NY, Amy Belsher,", "paragraph_id": "para_51" }, { "text": "New York Civil Liberties Union, New York,", "paragraph_id": "para_52" }, { "text": "NY, Paul O’Dwyer, Law Office of Paul", "paragraph_id": "para_53" }, { "text": "O’Dwyer, P.C., New York, NY, on the brief).", "paragraph_id": "para_54" }, { "text": "For Amici Curiae Immigration Law", "paragraph_id": "para_55" }, { "text": "Scholars, in support of Petitioner-", "paragraph_id": "para_56" }, { "text": "Appellee:", "paragraph_id": "para_57" }, { "text": "Amit Jain, Roderick & Solange MacArthur", "paragraph_id": "para_58" }, { "text": "Justice Center, Washington, DC.", "paragraph_id": "para_59" }, { "text": "For Amici Curiae American", "paragraph_id": "para_60" }, { "text": "Immigration Council and American", "paragraph_id": "para_61" }, { "text": "Immigration Lawyers Association,", "paragraph_id": "para_62" }, { "text": "in support of Petitioner-Appellee:", "paragraph_id": "para_63" }, { "text": "Suchita Mathur, Emma Winger, American", "paragraph_id": "para_64" }, { "text": "Immigration Council, Washington, DC.", "paragraph_id": "para_65" }, { "text": "ff", "paragraph_id": "para_66" }, { "text": "3", "paragraph_id": "para_67" }, { "text": "Following disposition of this appeal on April 28, 2026, an active judge of the", "paragraph_id": "para_68" }, { "text": "Court requested a poll on whether to rehear the case in banc. A poll having been", "paragraph_id": "para_69" }, { "text": "conducted and there being no majority favoring in banc review, rehearing in banc", "paragraph_id": "para_70" }, { "text": "is hereby DENIED.", "paragraph_id": "para_71" }, { "text": "Joseph F. Bianco and Alison J. Nathan, Circuit Judges, joined by Eunice C.", "paragraph_id": "para_72" }, { "text": "Lee, Beth Robinson, Myrna Pérez, and Sarah A. L. Merriam, Circuit Judges, concur", "paragraph_id": "para_73" }, { "text": "by opinion in the denial of rehearing in banc.", "paragraph_id": "para_74" }, { "text": "Matthew A. Schwartz, Circuit Judge, joined by Richard J. Sullivan, Circuit", "paragraph_id": "para_75" }, { "text": "Judge, concurs by opinion in the denial of rehearing in banc.", "paragraph_id": "para_76" }, { "text": "Steven J. Menashi, Circuit Judge, joined as to Parts I and II-E by Michael H.", "paragraph_id": "para_77" }, { "text": "Park, Circuit Judge, dissents by opinion from the denial of rehearing in banc.", "paragraph_id": "para_78" }, { "text": "José A. Cabranes, Circuit Judge, filed a statement with respect to the denial", "paragraph_id": "para_79" }, { "text": "of rehearing in banc.", "paragraph_id": "para_80" }, { "text": "FOR THE COURT:", "paragraph_id": "para_81" }, { "text": "Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk", "paragraph_id": "para_82" }, { "text": "1", "paragraph_id": "para_83" }, { "text": "25-3141-pr", "paragraph_id": "para_84" }, { "text": "Barbosa da Cunha v. Freden", "paragraph_id": "para_85" }, { "text": "BIANCO and NATHAN, Circuit Judges, joined by LEE, ROBINSON, PÉREZ, and", "paragraph_id": "para_86" }, { "text": "MERRIAM, Circuit Judges, concurring in the denial of rehearing en banc:", "paragraph_id": "para_87" }, { "text": "“The sole question presented by this appeal is whether Section 1226 or", "paragraph_id": "para_88" }, { "text": "Section 1225 governs Petitioner’s detention.” Barbosa da Cunha v. Freden, 175", "paragraph_id": "para_89" }, { "text": "F.4th 61, 70 (2d Cir. 2026). The government and Judge Menashi in his dissent from", "paragraph_id": "para_90" }, { "text": "the denial of rehearing en banc argue that Section 1225 applies and that Petitioner", "paragraph_id": "para_91" }, { "text": "must be detained without a bond hearing. As articulated by Judge Cabranes, the", "paragraph_id": "para_92" }, { "text": "fanciful contention is “that Congress clearly required the Executive to detain", "paragraph_id": "para_93" }, { "text": "millions of people like Petitioner—parents of American children, owners of", "paragraph_id": "para_94" }, { "text": "American businesses, members of American communities—but that some thirty", "paragraph_id": "para_95" }, { "text": "years passed before anyone noticed. In the meantime, fifteen Congresses stood", "paragraph_id": "para_96" }, { "text": "silently by as five presidents ignored the plain text of the statute. Immigration", "paragraph_id": "para_97" }, { "text": "officials also failed to grasp that Congress had told them to round up people by", "paragraph_id": "para_98" }, { "text": "the millions. The capacity to carry out the largest detention in American history", "paragraph_id": "para_99" }, { "text": "went unbuilt.” Id. at 96 (Cabranes, J., concurring).", "paragraph_id": "para_100" }, { "text": "For the detailed explanation as to why this contention is wrong given the", "paragraph_id": "para_101" }, { "text": "relevant statutory interpretation, we rest entirely on the underlying panel opinion,", "paragraph_id": "para_102" }, { "text": "id. at 69–96 (majority opinion), and concurrence by Judge Cabranes, id. at 96–99", "paragraph_id": "para_103" }, { "text": "(Cabranes, J., concurring). The unanimous conclusion we reached follows from", "paragraph_id": "para_104" }, { "text": "the plain text of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act", "paragraph_id": "para_105" }, { "text": "and is reinforced by the statute’s context, structure, history, and purpose. It is the", "paragraph_id": "para_106" }, { "text": "same conclusion reached by eight other circuits and a vast majority of district", "paragraph_id": "para_107" }, { "text": "courts around the country. Unsurprisingly, then, a majority of our colleagues", "paragraph_id": "para_108" }, { "text": "concur in the denial of rehearing en banc.", "paragraph_id": "para_109" }, { "text": "One would not know from reading Judge Menashi’s dissent that this", "paragraph_id": "para_110" }, { "text": "statutory question was the sole question presented by the appeal. There he", "paragraph_id": "para_111" }, { "text": "advances a wholly separate argument: that Petitioner’s claims are not cognizable", "paragraph_id": "para_112" }, { "text": "in habeas. That was not raised by the government and accordingly not addressed", "paragraph_id": "para_113" }, { "text": "by the panel. We write briefly to respond to this novel argument.1", "paragraph_id": "para_114" }, { "text": "1 We do not address the novel and unrelated contentions raised by Judge Schwartz in", "paragraph_id": "para_115" }, { "text": "his concurrence in the denial of rehearing en banc. It is not the role of judges to advise", "paragraph_id": "para_116" }, { "text": "2", "paragraph_id": "para_117" }, { "text": "The dissent argues that the panel erred by treating Petitioner’s requested", "paragraph_id": "para_118" }, { "text": "relief as cognizable in habeas, because Petitioner “did not challenge the authority", "paragraph_id": "para_119" }, { "text": "of the government to detain him” and “did not claim he was entitled to release.”", "paragraph_id": "para_120" }, { "text": "Post at 46 (emphasis in original). Instead, the dissent contends that Petitioner “was", "paragraph_id": "para_121" }, { "text": "actually seeking relief akin to a mandatory injunction or mandamus.” Id. at 47.", "paragraph_id": "para_122" }, { "text": "Setting aside that this argument was not raised or briefed—which is reason", "paragraph_id": "para_123" }, { "text": "enough to deny en banc review—the dissent’s argument is incorrect and extreme.", "paragraph_id": "para_124" }, { "text": "As a factual matter, Petitioner did seek release based on the unlawfulness of", "paragraph_id": "para_125" }, { "text": "his detention. Petitioner claimed that, because he was arrested and detained", "paragraph_id": "para_126" }, { "text": "without the procedural protections afforded by Section 1226, his “continuing", "paragraph_id": "para_127" }, { "text": "detention is therefore unlawful.” App’x at 18. His petition sought “a writ of", "paragraph_id": "para_128" }, { "text": "habeas corpus releasing him immediately from detention, or in the alternative,", "paragraph_id": "para_129" }, { "text": "directing that he be provided with a bond hearing.” App’x at 11. He therefore", "paragraph_id": "para_130" }, { "text": "does not resemble the petitioners in the cases on which the dissent relies. See Dep’t", "paragraph_id": "para_131" }, { "text": "of Homeland Sec. v. Thuraissigiam, 591 U.S. 103, 117 (2020) (“In this case, however,", "paragraph_id": "para_132" }, { "text": "respondent did not ask to be released.”); Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 82 (2005)", "paragraph_id": "para_133" }, { "text": "(“Neither respondent seeks an injunction ordering his immediate or speedier", "paragraph_id": "para_134" }, { "text": "release into the community.”); Munaf v. Geren, 553 U.S. 674, 693 (2008) (“[T]he last", "paragraph_id": "para_135" }, { "text": "thing petitioners want is simple release; that would expose them to apprehension", "paragraph_id": "para_136" }, { "text": "by Iraqi authorities for criminal prosecution[.]”).", "paragraph_id": "para_137" }, { "text": "In any event, the dissent’s single-minded focus on whether Petitioner", "paragraph_id": "para_138" }, { "text": "sought release is misplaced. “[I]mmediate physical release [is not] the only", "paragraph_id": "para_139" }, { "text": "remedy under the federal writ of habeas corpus.” Trump v. J. G. G., 604 U.S. 670,", "paragraph_id": "para_140" }, { "text": "672 (2025) (quoting Peyton v. Rowe, 391 U.S. 54, 67 (1968)); see also Boumediene v.", "paragraph_id": "para_141" }, { "text": "Bush, 553 U.S. 723, 779 (2008) (“[R]elease need not be the exclusive remedy and is", "paragraph_id": "para_142" }, { "text": "not the appropriate one in every case in which the writ is granted.”); Thuraissigiam,", "paragraph_id": "para_143" }, { "text": "591 U.S. at 137 (noting that Boumediene “reaffirmed that release is . . . not the", "paragraph_id": "para_144" }, { "text": "‘exclusive’ result of every writ”). The availability of habeas thus does not turn on", "paragraph_id": "para_145" }, { "text": "“whether the [Petitioner] formally request[s] release from confinement[.]” J. G. G.,", "paragraph_id": "para_146" }, { "text": "604 U.S. at 672. The dissent’s cramped contrary view comes largely from post-", "paragraph_id": "para_147" }, { "text": "the government as to its “options to reduce prejudice to its position.” Post at 1. Nor is it", "paragraph_id": "para_148" }, { "text": "judicious to opine on issues that have not, but may someday, come before us as neutral", "paragraph_id": "para_149" }, { "text": "arbiters of the law. See United States v. Fruehauf, 365 U.S. 146, 157 (1961) (“[Advisory]", "paragraph_id": "para_150" }, { "text": "opinions, such advance expressions of legal judgment upon issues which remain", "paragraph_id": "para_151" }, { "text": "unfocused . . . , we have consistently refused to give.”).", "paragraph_id": "para_152" }, { "text": "3", "paragraph_id": "para_153" }, { "text": "conviction cases that established the line between habeas and 42 U.S.C. § 1983,", "paragraph_id": "para_154" }, { "text": "reasoning from principles inapposite here. See, e.g., post at 47–56 (citing Wilkinson,", "paragraph_id": "para_155" }, { "text": "544 U.S. at 85 (Scalia, J., concurring); Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 (1973)).", "paragraph_id": "para_156" }, { "text": "Although we will not accept the dissent’s invitation to sketch the bounds of", "paragraph_id": "para_157" }, { "text": "“the core of habeas corpus,” post at 56 (quotation marks omitted), we have no", "paragraph_id": "para_158" }, { "text": "doubt that Petitioner’s challenge falls within it. Petitioner alleged that he could", "paragraph_id": "para_159" }, { "text": "not be detained under Section 1225 and that he could only be detained under", "paragraph_id": "para_160" }, { "text": "Section 1226 if the government granted him a bond hearing. App’x at 17–18. He", "paragraph_id": "para_161" }, { "text": "argued, on that basis, that his detention was “unlawful, regardless of what statute", "paragraph_id": "para_162" }, { "text": "might apply to purportedly authorize such detention.” App’x at 20. The district", "paragraph_id": "para_163" }, { "text": "court therefore properly exercised habeas jurisdiction over this case, directing that", "paragraph_id": "para_164" }, { "text": "the government “conduct a constitutionally adequate bond hearing,” and that,", "paragraph_id": "para_165" }, { "text": "“[i]f such bond hearing is not conducted within ten (10) days of the date of this", "paragraph_id": "para_166" }, { "text": "order, Petitioner shall be released from custody.” Barbosa da Cunha v. Moniz, No.", "paragraph_id": "para_167" }, { "text": "25 Civ. 6532, Dkt. 25 (W.D.N.Y. Oct. 20, 2025). In other words, Petitioner", "paragraph_id": "para_168" }, { "text": "challenged “the legality of his detention,” and the district court granted", "paragraph_id": "para_169" }, { "text": "“conditional release” in order to “allow[] the executive to justify or cure a defect", "paragraph_id": "para_170" }, { "text": "in detention before requiring release.” Thuraissigiam, 591 U.S. at 122. That is exactly", "paragraph_id": "para_171" }, { "text": "what habeas relief is for.", "paragraph_id": "para_172" }, { "text": "The dissent argues that “compar[ing] the relief the district court ordered to", "paragraph_id": "para_173" }, { "text": "a writ of ‘conditional release’” is “an improper analogy.” Post at 51–52. But", "paragraph_id": "para_174" }, { "text": "conditional release is not an analogy; it is an accurate description of the relief", "paragraph_id": "para_175" }, { "text": "fashioned by the district court. Such relief is standard where a detainee claims that", "paragraph_id": "para_176" }, { "text": "he is “being held pursuant to the erroneous application or interpretation of", "paragraph_id": "para_177" }, { "text": "relevant law.” Boumediene, 553 U.S. at 779 (quotation marks omitted). Conditional", "paragraph_id": "para_178" }, { "text": "release enables courts to exercise their “broad discretion in conditioning a", "paragraph_id": "para_179" }, { "text": "judgment granting habeas relief,” Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 775 (1987), and", "paragraph_id": "para_180" }, { "text": "spares courts from “having to choose between ordering an absolute discharge of", "paragraph_id": "para_181" }, { "text": "the prisoner and denying him all relief,” Dowd v. U.S. ex rel. Cook, 340 U.S. 206,", "paragraph_id": "para_182" }, { "text": "209–10 (1951). This case illustrates these benefits. Instead of requiring the", "paragraph_id": "para_183" }, { "text": "government to release and re-detain Petitioner under the proper statutory", "paragraph_id": "para_184" }, { "text": "provision, the district court gave the government an opportunity to correct its", "paragraph_id": "para_185" }, { "text": "error before requiring release. Habeas thus was not used as a “tool to extort a new", "paragraph_id": "para_186" }, { "text": "hearing from the government,” as the dissent claims, post at 54–55, but as a", "paragraph_id": "para_187" }, { "text": "mechanism for “removing the injury of unjust and illegal confinement,” 3 W.", "paragraph_id": "para_188" }, { "text": "4", "paragraph_id": "para_189" }, { "text": "Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 137 (1768) (emphasis omitted).", "paragraph_id": "para_190" }, { "text": "In sum, the petition, in challenging the lawfulness of Petitioner’s detention", "paragraph_id": "para_191" }, { "text": "and requesting release, sought habeas relief, which the district court provided by", "paragraph_id": "para_192" }, { "text": "ordering release absent a prompt bond hearing. The dissent’s novel arguments to", "paragraph_id": "para_193" }, { "text": "the contrary are unpersuasive.", "paragraph_id": "para_194" }, { "text": "* * *", "paragraph_id": "para_195" }, { "text": "As to the sole question presented on appeal—whether Section 1225 or", "paragraph_id": "para_196" }, { "text": "Section 1226 governed Petitioner’s detention—our holding was dictated by the", "paragraph_id": "para_197" }, { "text": "plain text of the statute. Section 1225(b)(2)(A) “applies only to a noncitizen who is", "paragraph_id": "para_198" }, { "text": "both an ‘applicant for admission’ and ‘seeking admission.’” Barbosa da Cunha, 175", "paragraph_id": "para_199" }, { "text": "F.4th at 74. Petitioner, who entered the United States unlawfully more than two", "paragraph_id": "para_200" }, { "text": "decades ago and has resided here ever since, was not “seeking admission” because", "paragraph_id": "para_201" }, { "text": "he was not “seeking to come inside [the country] from outside.” Id. at 97", "paragraph_id": "para_202" }, { "text": "(Cabranes, J., concurring). Accordingly, his detention was governed by Section", "paragraph_id": "para_203" }, { "text": "1226, which entitled him to a bond hearing. The dissent’s “attempt to muddy these", "paragraph_id": "para_204" }, { "text": "textually clear waters defies the statute’s context, structure, history, and", "paragraph_id": "para_205" }, { "text": "purpose[.]” Id. at 96 (majority opinion).", "paragraph_id": "para_206" }, { "text": "The dissent’s novel argument about the scope of habeas fares no better.", "paragraph_id": "para_207" }, { "text": "According to the dissent, the nine circuits and hundreds of district courts to grant", "paragraph_id": "para_208" }, { "text": "habeas relief to individuals wrongly detained under Section 1225 did not have", "paragraph_id": "para_209" }, { "text": "authority to do so. That is a drastic view that not even the government has", "paragraph_id": "para_210" }, { "text": "advanced in this case.", "paragraph_id": "para_211" }, { "text": "Because the district court was right on the statutory question and had", "paragraph_id": "para_212" }, { "text": "authority to grant habeas relief, the panel opinion correctly affirmed the decision", "paragraph_id": "para_213" }, { "text": "below and our Court correctly voted to deny rehearing en banc.", "paragraph_id": "para_214" }, { "text": "1", "paragraph_id": "para_215" }, { "text": "SCHWARTZ, Circuit Judge, joined by SULLIVAN, Circuit Judge, concurring in", "paragraph_id": "para_216" }, { "text": "the denial of rehearing en banc:", "paragraph_id": "para_217" }, { "text": "Although I agree with the analysis in the dissent, I support the decision to", "paragraph_id": "para_218" }, { "text": "deny rehearing en banc. My “[m]ere substantive disagreement” with the panel", "paragraph_id": "para_219" }, { "text": "opinion does not warrant the time and effort of full court rehearing. Baker v. Pataki,", "paragraph_id": "para_220" }, { "text": "85 F.3d 919, 941 (2d Cir. 1996) (Feinberg, J.).", "paragraph_id": "para_221" }, { "text": "Further, there is a deep and widening circuit split on the nationally important", "paragraph_id": "para_222" }, { "text": "issue of whether the government may detain aliens like Petitioner under", "paragraph_id": "para_223" }, { "text": "Section 1225 or Section 1226. In general, issues for “which Supreme Court", "paragraph_id": "para_224" }, { "text": "resolution is inevitable should not be permitted to tarry in this Court for further", "paragraph_id": "para_225" }, { "text": "intermediate action, . . . except when the views of this Court would be of real benefit", "paragraph_id": "para_226" }, { "text": "to the Supreme Court.” Green v. Santa Fe Indus., Inc., 533 F.2d 1309, 1310 (2d Cir.", "paragraph_id": "para_227" }, { "text": "1976) (per curiam); see also John M. Walker, Jr., Foreword, 21 Quinnipiac L. Rev.", "paragraph_id": "para_228" }, { "text": "1, 14 (2001) (“[T]he Second Circuit’s approach to in banc review—one that holds", "paragraph_id": "para_229" }, { "text": "the process in reserve for the exceptional case that is an unlikely candidate for", "paragraph_id": "para_230" }, { "text": "Supreme Court resolution—is sound, and it will continue to serve this [C]ircuit well", "paragraph_id": "para_231" }, { "text": "in the years to come.”). As the issue in this case has been thoroughly ventilated—", "paragraph_id": "para_232" }, { "text": "both in our Circuit and in circuits across the country—en banc consideration would", "paragraph_id": "para_233" }, { "text": "be unlikely to benefit the Supreme Court. See Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 479", "paragraph_id": "para_234" }, { "text": "F.2d 1005, 1021 (2d Cir. 1973) (Kaufman, J., joined by Friendly, C.J. & Feinberg,", "paragraph_id": "para_235" }, { "text": "2", "paragraph_id": "para_236" }, { "text": "Mansfield & Mulligan, JJ., concurring in the denial of rehearing en banc) (“En banc", "paragraph_id": "para_237" }, { "text": "consideration . . . would merely serve as an instrument of delay.”), vacated, 417 U.S.", "paragraph_id": "para_238" }, { "text": "156 (1974).", "paragraph_id": "para_239" }, { "text": "While awaiting the Supreme Court’s guidance, en banc review is also", "paragraph_id": "para_240" }, { "text": "unnecessary because the United States still has options to reduce prejudice to its", "paragraph_id": "para_241" }, { "text": "position as to Petitioner in particular and aliens in general.", "paragraph_id": "para_242" }, { "text": "As to Petitioner, even though he was temporarily released under Section 1226,", "paragraph_id": "para_243" }, { "text": "the Attorney General may still “at any time” “revoke [his] bond or parole . . . ,", "paragraph_id": "para_244" }, { "text": "rearrest [him] under the original warrant, and detain [him].” 8 U.S.C. § 1226(b).", "paragraph_id": "para_245" }, { "text": "Congress has made the Attorney General’s reasons for such a decision unreviewable", "paragraph_id": "para_246" }, { "text": "by any court. See id. § 1226(e) (“No court may set aside any action or decision by", "paragraph_id": "para_247" }, { "text": "the Attorney General under [Section 1226] regarding the detention of any alien or", "paragraph_id": "para_248" }, { "text": "the revocation or denial of bond or parole.”). Alternatively, the Attorney General", "paragraph_id": "para_249" }, { "text": "may still refer the case to himself to dispose of it. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(h) (2026).", "paragraph_id": "para_250" }, { "text": "So the United States may detain Petitioner pending his removal proceedings,", "paragraph_id": "para_251" }, { "text": "regardless of whether Section 1226 applies.", "paragraph_id": "para_252" }, { "text": "As to aliens as a group, Congress has given the Attorney General very broad", "paragraph_id": "para_253" }, { "text": "discretion to choose to detain or release an alien. Under Section 1226, the Attorney", "paragraph_id": "para_254" }, { "text": "General (1) “may continue to detain [an] arrested alien” or (2) “may release the", "paragraph_id": "para_255" }, { "text": "alien” on bond or parole “pending a [removal] decision.” 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a)(1)–", "paragraph_id": "para_256" }, { "text": "3", "paragraph_id": "para_257" }, { "text": "(2). In other words, there is no statutory requirement for the United States to offer", "paragraph_id": "para_258" }, { "text": "an alien the opportunity for bond or parole. Id. § 1226(e). At present, an alien falling", "paragraph_id": "para_259" }, { "text": "under Section 1226(a) is entitled to request a bond or parole hearing only because of", "paragraph_id": "para_260" }, { "text": "the regulatory framework the Attorney General has adopted surrounding detention", "paragraph_id": "para_261" }, { "text": "and release. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 236.1(d), 1003.19 (2026). The Attorney General could", "paragraph_id": "para_262" }, { "text": "rescind or amend those regulations to reduce the burden on the government.", "paragraph_id": "para_263" }, { "text": "Accordingly, I concur in the denial of rehearing en banc.", "paragraph_id": "para_264" }, { "text": "25-3141", "paragraph_id": "para_265" }, { "text": "Barbosa da Cunha v. Freden", "paragraph_id": "para_266" }, { "text": "MENASHI, Circuit Judge, joined as to Parts I and II-E by PARK, Circuit", "paragraph_id": "para_267" }, { "text": "Judge, dissenting from the denial of rehearing en banc:", "paragraph_id": "para_268" }, { "text": "Justice Scalia once identified the “true rule” of statutory", "paragraph_id": "para_269" }, { "text": "interpretation to follow when a court perceives dissonance between a", "paragraph_id": "para_270" }, { "text": "statutory definition and the ordinary meaning of a term: “When a", "paragraph_id": "para_271" }, { "text": "statute includes an explicit definition, we must follow that definition,", "paragraph_id": "para_272" }, { "text": "even if it varies from that term’s ordinary meaning.” Bond v. United States,", "paragraph_id": "para_273" }, { "text": "572 U.S. 844, 871 (2014) (Scalia, J., concurring in the judgment)", "paragraph_id": "para_274" }, { "text": "(quoting Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914, 942 (2000)). In Barbosa da", "paragraph_id": "para_275" }, { "text": "Cunha v. Freden, 175 F.4th 61 (2d Cir. 2026), a panel of this court", "paragraph_id": "para_276" }, { "text": "violated that rule, and today the en banc court declines to correct the", "paragraph_id": "para_277" }, { "text": "error. I dissent from the denial of rehearing en banc.", "paragraph_id": "para_278" }, { "text": "In Barbosa da Cunha, the panel held that 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A)", "paragraph_id": "para_279" }, { "text": "“does not apply” to aliens “who are present in the United States after", "paragraph_id": "para_280" }, { "text": "entering the country without inspection and admission, and who", "paragraph_id": "para_281" }, { "text": "were not apprehended while entering the country or shortly", "paragraph_id": "para_282" }, { "text": "thereafter.” 175 F.4th at 69. The panel claimed that its conclusion", "paragraph_id": "para_283" }, { "text": "follows from the “plain text” of the statute. Id.", "paragraph_id": "para_284" }, { "text": "That is wrong. The statute provides that “in the case of an alien", "paragraph_id": "para_285" }, { "text": "who is an applicant for admission, if the examining immigration officer", "paragraph_id": "para_286" }, { "text": "determines that an alien seeking admission is not clearly and beyond a", "paragraph_id": "para_287" }, { "text": "doubt entitled to be admitted, the alien shall be detained.” 8 U.S.C.", "paragraph_id": "para_288" }, { "text": "§ 1225(b)(2)(A) (emphasis added). Congress has directed that, for", "paragraph_id": "para_289" }, { "text": "purposes of the Immigration and Nationality Act, “[a]n alien present", "paragraph_id": "para_290" }, { "text": "in the United States who has not been admitted” shall be “deemed”", "paragraph_id": "para_291" }, { "text": "to be “an applicant for admission.” Id. § 1225(a)(1).", "paragraph_id": "para_292" }, { "text": "Thus, the statute deems an unadmitted and illegally present", "paragraph_id": "para_293" }, { "text": "alien to be an applicant for admission. It is true that unadmitted illegal", "paragraph_id": "para_294" }, { "text": "aliens are not actually applying for admission or otherwise seeking", "paragraph_id": "para_295" }, { "text": "2", "paragraph_id": "para_296" }, { "text": "admission to the country because they have already entered illegally.", "paragraph_id": "para_297" }, { "text": "But under the scheme that Congress enacted, those aliens are", "paragraph_id": "para_298" }, { "text": "“deemed constructive applicants for admission by operation of", "paragraph_id": "para_299" }, { "text": "[§ 1225(a)(1)].” Matter of Lemus-Losa, 25 I. & N. Dec. 734, 743 n.6 (BIA", "paragraph_id": "para_300" }, { "text": "2012). In a legal—albeit “artificial”—sense, those constructive", "paragraph_id": "para_301" }, { "text": "applicants for admission are “seeking admission” for purposes of the", "paragraph_id": "para_302" }, { "text": "INA. Id. (alteration omitted). I would rehear this case en banc to give", "paragraph_id": "para_303" }, { "text": "effect to the statute that Congress adopted, including its mandate to", "paragraph_id": "para_304" }, { "text": "treat unadmitted illegal aliens as applicants for admission for", "paragraph_id": "para_305" }, { "text": "purposes of the INA.", "paragraph_id": "para_306" }, { "text": "The panel made an additional error—unrelated to the statutory", "paragraph_id": "para_307" }, { "text": "interpretation question—by treating the requested relief as", "paragraph_id": "para_308" }, { "text": "cognizable in habeas. The petitioner in this case sought a writ of", "paragraph_id": "para_309" }, { "text": "habeas corpus. “Habeas is at its core a remedy for unlawful executive", "paragraph_id": "para_310" }, { "text": "detention,” and “[t]he typical remedy for such detention is, of course,", "paragraph_id": "para_311" }, { "text": "release.” Munaf v. Geren, 553 U.S. 674, 693 (2008). Barbosa da Cunha,", "paragraph_id": "para_312" }, { "text": "however, did not claim he was entitled to release. He sought a court", "paragraph_id": "para_313" }, { "text": "order requiring the federal government to (1) reclassify him as an", "paragraph_id": "para_314" }, { "text": "alien who was not seeking admission and then (2) to offer him the", "paragraph_id": "para_315" }, { "text": "bond hearing that an alien subject to discretionary detention may", "paragraph_id": "para_316" }, { "text": "receive. Properly understood, he sought relief akin to a mandatory", "paragraph_id": "para_317" }, { "text": "injunction or mandamus.", "paragraph_id": "para_318" }, { "text": "Allowing Barbosa da Cunha to bring such a claim in habeas", "paragraph_id": "para_319" }, { "text": "“would require us to broaden the scope of habeas relief beyond", "paragraph_id": "para_320" }, { "text": "recognition.” Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 85 (2005) (Scalia, J.,", "paragraph_id": "para_321" }, { "text": "concurring). And that expansion conflicts with Supreme Court", "paragraph_id": "para_322" }, { "text": "precedent. When an alien sought “a writ directing the [government]", "paragraph_id": "para_323" }, { "text": "to provide him a new opportunity to apply for asylum,” the Supreme", "paragraph_id": "para_324" }, { "text": "Court emphasized that such a writ “is not a form of relief that was", "paragraph_id": "para_325" }, { "text": "available in habeas at the time of the adoption of the Constitution.”", "paragraph_id": "para_326" }, { "text": "3", "paragraph_id": "para_327" }, { "text": "DHS v. Thuraissigiam, 591 U.S. 103, 117 n.13 (2020) (internal quotation", "paragraph_id": "para_328" }, { "text": "marks and alterations omitted). The same conclusion applies here:", "paragraph_id": "para_329" }, { "text": "The writ of habeas corpus “has never encompassed” the sort of claim", "paragraph_id": "para_330" }, { "text": "that Barbosa da Cunha has made. Id. at 116 n.12. I would rehear this", "paragraph_id": "para_331" }, { "text": "case en banc also to clarify that habeas is not available to an alien who", "paragraph_id": "para_332" }, { "text": "seeks not release but statutory reclassification and additional", "paragraph_id": "para_333" }, { "text": "administrative procedures.", "paragraph_id": "para_334" }, { "text": "This case “involves one or more questions of exceptional", "paragraph_id": "para_335" }, { "text": "importance.” Fed. R. App. P. 40(b)(2)(D). If the government has the", "paragraph_id": "para_336" }, { "text": "correct interpretation of the statute, it would have the significant", "paragraph_id": "para_337" }, { "text": "“impact of requiring the detention without bond” of unadmitted", "paragraph_id": "para_338" }, { "text": "illegal aliens. Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, 166 F.4th 494, 517 (5th Cir.", "paragraph_id": "para_339" }, { "text": "2026) (Douglas, J., dissenting). And the panel opinion “conflicts with”", "paragraph_id": "para_340" }, { "text": "the decisions of other courts of appeals. Fed. R. App. P. 40(b)(2)(C).", "paragraph_id": "para_341" }, { "text": "The panel expressly rejected the holdings of the Fifth and Eighth", "paragraph_id": "para_342" }, { "text": "Circuits with respect to the same issue. See Barbosa da Cunha, 175 F.4th", "paragraph_id": "para_343" }, { "text": "at 72 (citing Buenrostro-Mendez, 166 F.4th at 508 (majority opinion),", "paragraph_id": "para_344" }, { "text": "and Avila v. Bondi, 170 F.4th 1128, 1138 (8th Cir. 2026)). Since the panel", "paragraph_id": "para_345" }, { "text": "issued its opinion, the split has deepened.1 Moreover, by extending", "paragraph_id": "para_346" }, { "text": "the scope of habeas relief beyond the limits identified in Thuraissigiam,", "paragraph_id": "para_347" }, { "text": "“the panel decision conflicts with a decision of the United States", "paragraph_id": "para_348" }, { "text": "Supreme Court.” Fed. R. App. P. 40(b)(2)(B).", "paragraph_id": "para_349" }, { "text": "1 See Lopez-Campos v. Raycraft, 175 F.4th 713, 734-35 (6th Cir. 2026);", "paragraph_id": "para_350" }, { "text": "Hernandez Alvarez v. Warden, 175 F.4th 1258, 1285 (11th Cir. 2026); Santillan", "paragraph_id": "para_351" }, { "text": "Quiroz v. Mullin, 180 F.4th 1226, 1250-51 (10th Cir. 2026); Rodriguez Vazquez", "paragraph_id": "para_352" }, { "text": "v. Bostock, 183 F.4th 1160, 1193 (9th Cir. 2026); Cirrus Rojas v. Olson, 183 F.4th", "paragraph_id": "para_353" }, { "text": "909, 931 (7th Cir. 2026); Guerrero Orellana v. Moniz, No. 25-2152, 2026 WL", "paragraph_id": "para_354" }, { "text": "2352042, at *11 (1st Cir. Aug. 13, 2026); Buele Morocho v. Warden, No. 26-1150,", "paragraph_id": "para_355" }, { "text": "2026 WL 2546223, at *3 (3d Cir. Aug. 28, 2026).", "paragraph_id": "para_356" }, { "text": "4", "paragraph_id": "para_357" }, { "text": "I would rehear the case en banc both to give effect to the statute", "paragraph_id": "para_358" }, { "text": "that Congress adopted and to respect the historical limits on habeas", "paragraph_id": "para_359" }, { "text": "relief that the Supreme Court has identified.", "paragraph_id": "para_360" }, { "text": "I", "paragraph_id": "para_361" }, { "text": "This case involves two provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1225. First, there", "paragraph_id": "para_362" }, { "text": "is the detention provision: “[I]n the case of an alien who is an", "paragraph_id": "para_363" }, { "text": "applicant for admission, if the examining immigration officer", "paragraph_id": "para_364" }, { "text": "determines that an alien seeking admission is not clearly and beyond", "paragraph_id": "para_365" }, { "text": "a doubt entitled to be admitted, the alien shall be detained for a", "paragraph_id": "para_366" }, { "text": "proceeding under section 1229a of this title.” 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A).", "paragraph_id": "para_367" }, { "text": "Second, there is the deeming provision: “An alien present in the", "paragraph_id": "para_368" }, { "text": "United States who has not been admitted or who arrives in the United", "paragraph_id": "para_369" }, { "text": "States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an", "paragraph_id": "para_370" }, { "text": "alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted", "paragraph_id": "para_371" }, { "text": "in international or United States waters) shall be deemed for purposes", "paragraph_id": "para_372" }, { "text": "of this chapter an applicant for admission.” Id. § 1225(a)(1).", "paragraph_id": "para_373" }, { "text": "The detention provision requires the detention pending a", "paragraph_id": "para_374" }, { "text": "removal proceeding of an “applicant for admission” who is “seeking", "paragraph_id": "para_375" }, { "text": "admission.” The deeming provision requires that an unadmitted", "paragraph_id": "para_376" }, { "text": "illegal alien such as Barbosa da Cunha be treated as an “applicant for", "paragraph_id": "para_377" }, { "text": "admission.” That is, it requires the unadmitted illegal alien to be", "paragraph_id": "para_378" }, { "text": "treated as if he were an arriving alien applying for admission to the", "paragraph_id": "para_379" }, { "text": "United States. The question is whether that constructive applicant for", "paragraph_id": "para_380" }, { "text": "admission, who is not actually arriving and seeking entry, must be", "paragraph_id": "para_381" }, { "text": "treated as “seeking admission” for purposes of the statute.", "paragraph_id": "para_382" }, { "text": "The panel concluded that a constructive applicant for", "paragraph_id": "para_383" }, { "text": "admission is not seeking admission. First, the panel noted that", "paragraph_id": "para_384" }, { "text": "“‘applicant for admission’ is defined by statute to mean any", "paragraph_id": "para_385" }, { "text": "noncitizen who is present in the United States and has not been", "paragraph_id": "para_386" }, { "text": "5", "paragraph_id": "para_387" }, { "text": "admitted, or is arriving in the United States.” Barbosa da Cunha, 175", "paragraph_id": "para_388" }, { "text": "F.4th at 74. Second, the panel noted that “‘admission’ is defined by", "paragraph_id": "para_389" }, { "text": "statute as ‘the lawful entry of the alien into the United States after", "paragraph_id": "para_390" }, { "text": "inspection and authorization.’” Id. (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(13)(A)).", "paragraph_id": "para_391" }, { "text": "In the absence of a statutory definition, the panel defined “entry” as", "paragraph_id": "para_392" }, { "text": "“the act of entering” and “to ‘enter’” as “to go or come into a material", "paragraph_id": "para_393" }, { "text": "place.” Id. (quoting Entry and Enter, Webster’s Third New", "paragraph_id": "para_394" }, { "text": "International Dictionary 759, 756 (1993)). Third, the panel said that", "paragraph_id": "para_395" }, { "text": "“although also not defined in the statute, the term ‘seek’ means … to", "paragraph_id": "para_396" }, { "text": "‘request’ or ‘ask for,’” and “[t]he term ‘seeking’ is in the present", "paragraph_id": "para_397" }, { "text": "participle form, which expresses present action.” Id.", "paragraph_id": "para_398" }, { "text": "Putting these steps together, the panel concluded that the", "paragraph_id": "para_399" }, { "text": "detention provision “applies only to (1) noncitizens who are present", "paragraph_id": "para_400" }, { "text": "and have not been admitted, and (2) are requesting (3) lawful entry", "paragraph_id": "para_401" }, { "text": "into the United States after inspection and authorization.” Id. The", "paragraph_id": "para_402" }, { "text": "panel applied that conclusion to Barbosa da Cunha, stating that", "paragraph_id": "para_403" }, { "text": "“although Petitioner is an applicant for admission under the statutory", "paragraph_id": "para_404" }, { "text": "definition because he is present in the country and has never been", "paragraph_id": "para_405" }, { "text": "admitted, it simply cannot be said that he is ‘seeking admission,’ as", "paragraph_id": "para_406" }, { "text": "he is not requesting lawful entry into the United States.” Id.", "paragraph_id": "para_407" }, { "text": "In other words, Barbosa da Cunha (1) is an “applicant for", "paragraph_id": "para_408" }, { "text": "admission” even though he is not actually requesting admission, but", "paragraph_id": "para_409" }, { "text": "(2) he is not “seeking admission” because he is not actually requesting", "paragraph_id": "para_410" }, { "text": "admission. The panel recognized that “‘[a]pplicant’ ordinarily means", "paragraph_id": "para_411" }, { "text": "‘one who applies for something.’” Id. at 75 (quoting Applicant,", "paragraph_id": "para_412" }, { "text": "Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 105 (1993)). But the", "paragraph_id": "para_413" }, { "text": "panel explained that the deeming provision “gives ‘applicant for", "paragraph_id": "para_414" }, { "text": "admission’ an ‘artificial’ meaning, covering ‘constructive’ applicants", "paragraph_id": "para_415" }, { "text": "who never applied for anything.” Id. (quoting Lemus-Losa, 25", "paragraph_id": "para_416" }, { "text": "I. & N. Dec. at 743 n.6). Those constructive applicants “have not and", "paragraph_id": "para_417" }, { "text": "6", "paragraph_id": "para_418" }, { "text": "could not apply for what the statute defines as ‘admission’—‘lawful", "paragraph_id": "para_419" }, { "text": "entry into the United States after inspection and authorization by an", "paragraph_id": "para_420" }, { "text": "immigration officer.’” Id. (alteration omitted) (quoting 8 U.S.C.", "paragraph_id": "para_421" }, { "text": "§ 1101(a)(13)(A)).", "paragraph_id": "para_422" }, { "text": "According to the panel, Barbosa da Cunha can “only be an", "paragraph_id": "para_423" }, { "text": "‘applicant for admission’ because the statute uses ‘applicant’ in a", "paragraph_id": "para_424" }, { "text": "‘specialized’ way, rather than in its ordinary meaning.” Id. at 76", "paragraph_id": "para_425" }, { "text": "(quoting Feliciano v. DOT, 605 U.S. 38, 45 (2025)). While the panel", "paragraph_id": "para_426" }, { "text": "acknowledged that Congress has “deemed” the phrase “‘applicant for", "paragraph_id": "para_427" }, { "text": "admission’ to cover noncitizens who literally cannot be applying for", "paragraph_id": "para_428" }, { "text": "or seeking ‘admission,’” the panel said that “the statute is silent on", "paragraph_id": "para_429" }, { "text": "the meaning of ‘seeking’ and ‘applying’ and does not establish a legal", "paragraph_id": "para_430" }, { "text": "fiction as to those terms, leaving them with their ordinary meanings.”", "paragraph_id": "para_431" }, { "text": "Id. And “[u]sing the ordinary meaning of ‘seeking admission,’ no one", "paragraph_id": "para_432" }, { "text": "would consider an individual who never applied to also be ‘seeking", "paragraph_id": "para_433" }, { "text": "admission.’” Id.", "paragraph_id": "para_434" }, { "text": "In the end, the panel held that even though Barbosa da Cunha", "paragraph_id": "para_435" }, { "text": "is constructively an applicant for admission, the detention provision", "paragraph_id": "para_436" }, { "text": "does not apply to him unless he is literally seeking admission.", "paragraph_id": "para_437" }, { "text": "A", "paragraph_id": "para_438" }, { "text": "The panel’s logic reflects two errors.", "paragraph_id": "para_439" }, { "text": "First, the panel misunderstood what it means to seek admission", "paragraph_id": "para_440" }, { "text": "under the INA. The panel asserted that seeking admission necessarily", "paragraph_id": "para_441" }, { "text": "involves an attempt to enter the United States by “coming from", "paragraph_id": "para_442" }, { "text": "outside.” Id. at 74 (quoting United States ex rel. Claussen v. Day, 279 U.S.", "paragraph_id": "para_443" }, { "text": "398, 401 (1929)). That is incorrect because, as the Board of Immigration", "paragraph_id": "para_444" }, { "text": "Appeals has long recognized, “‘admission’ can include an adjustment", "paragraph_id": "para_445" }, { "text": "of status despite [an alien’s] illegal entry.” Lopez-Campos, 175 F.4th at", "paragraph_id": "para_446" }, { "text": "744 (Murphy, J., dissenting) (citing In re Rosas-Ramirez, 22 I. & N. Dec.", "paragraph_id": "para_447" }, { "text": "7", "paragraph_id": "para_448" }, { "text": "616, 617-23 (BIA 1999)). The BIA has rejected the contention that a", "paragraph_id": "para_449" }, { "text": "statutory reference “to an alien who ‘seeks admission’ applies only to", "paragraph_id": "para_450" }, { "text": "one who is applying for admission at the border.” In re Rodarte-Roman,", "paragraph_id": "para_451" }, { "text": "23 I. & N. Dec. 905, 908 (BIA 2006) (quoting 8 U.S.C.", "paragraph_id": "para_452" }, { "text": "§ 1182(a)(9)(B)(i)(II)). “In the Immigration and Nationality Act, the", "paragraph_id": "para_453" }, { "text": "term ‘admission’ generally refers to adjustment of status from within", "paragraph_id": "para_454" }, { "text": "the United States, as well as lawful entry at the border.” Id.; see also", "paragraph_id": "para_455" }, { "text": "Rosas-Ramirez, 22 I. & N. Dec. at 619 (holding that “the phrase ‘after", "paragraph_id": "para_456" }, { "text": "admission’” in 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) “includes an alien … who", "paragraph_id": "para_457" }, { "text": "has been ‘lawfully admitted for permanent residence’ … pursuant to", "paragraph_id": "para_458" }, { "text": "a grant of adjustment of status”).", "paragraph_id": "para_459" }, { "text": "We have previously recognized that an alien already present in", "paragraph_id": "para_460" }, { "text": "the United States may be seeking admission for purposes of the INA.", "paragraph_id": "para_461" }, { "text": "We explained that “with an adjustment application, the criminal alien", "paragraph_id": "para_462" }, { "text": "in the United States steps into the shoes of one at the border seeking", "paragraph_id": "para_463" }, { "text": "admission to the United States.” Seepersad v. Sessions, 892 F.3d 121, 124", "paragraph_id": "para_464" }, { "text": "(2d Cir. 2018). In other words, “an alien within the United States who", "paragraph_id": "para_465" }, { "text": "applies for an adjustment of status is assimilated to the position of an", "paragraph_id": "para_466" }, { "text": "alien outside the United States seeking entry as an immigrant because", "paragraph_id": "para_467" }, { "text": "an alien may adjust his status only if he is admissible.” Poveda v.", "paragraph_id": "para_468" }, { "text": "Attorney General, 692 F.3d 1168, 1176 (11th Cir. 2012) (internal", "paragraph_id": "para_469" }, { "text": "quotation marks omitted).", "paragraph_id": "para_470" }, { "text": "At the same time, not every alien who seeks an actual entry into", "paragraph_id": "para_471" }, { "text": "the country is seeking “admission.” An arriving alien at the border", "paragraph_id": "para_472" }, { "text": "might concede that he is inadmissible based on one of the grounds of", "paragraph_id": "para_473" }, { "text": "inadmissibility listed in 8 U.S.C. § 1182. The inadmissible alien may", "paragraph_id": "para_474" }, { "text": "nevertheless apply for asylum and request humanitarian parole into", "paragraph_id": "para_475" }, { "text": "the country while he litigates his asylum claim. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a);", "paragraph_id": "para_476" }, { "text": "id. § 1182(d)(5)(A). This alien would literally be seeking lawful entry", "paragraph_id": "para_477" }, { "text": "to the United States but would not be seeking “admission” under the", "paragraph_id": "para_478" }, { "text": "8", "paragraph_id": "para_479" }, { "text": "INA because “[n]either a grant of parole nor a grant of asylum", "paragraph_id": "para_480" }, { "text": "qualifies as an ‘admission.’” Lopez-Campos, 175 F.4th at 744 (Murphy,", "paragraph_id": "para_481" }, { "text": "J., dissenting) (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(13)(B)); see also Matter of V-X-,", "paragraph_id": "para_482" }, { "text": "26 I. & N. Dec. 147, 150-51 (BIA 2013); Sanchez v. Mayorkas, 593 U.S.", "paragraph_id": "para_483" }, { "text": "409, 415 (2021).2", "paragraph_id": "para_484" }, { "text": "So it is wrong to say that “seeking admission” under the INA", "paragraph_id": "para_485" }, { "text": "necessarily refers to a request to enter from the outside. An alien", "paragraph_id": "para_486" }, { "text": "present in the United States may seek admission without requesting", "paragraph_id": "para_487" }, { "text": "to enter, and an alien at the border may request to enter without", "paragraph_id": "para_488" }, { "text": "seeking admission. The meaning of the word “admission” in the INA", "paragraph_id": "para_489" }, { "text": "is context-specific,3 and in context an alien is often seeking admission", "paragraph_id": "para_490" }, { "text": "for purposes of the INA in a constructive rather than ordinary sense.", "paragraph_id": "para_491" }, { "text": "An alien who requires a determination that he is admissible in order", "paragraph_id": "para_492" }, { "text": "to receive the immigration benefit he actually wants—such as an", "paragraph_id": "para_493" }, { "text": "adjustment of status or authorization to remain in the country—will", "paragraph_id": "para_494" }, { "text": "be considered to be seeking “admission” even if he has already", "paragraph_id": "para_495" }, { "text": "entered the country.", "paragraph_id": "para_496" }, { "text": "2 See Sanchez, 593 U.S. at 415 (“On the one hand, a foreign national can be", "paragraph_id": "para_497" }, { "text": "admitted but not in lawful status—think of someone who legally entered", "paragraph_id": "para_498" }, { "text": "the United States on a student visa, but stayed in the country long past", "paragraph_id": "para_499" }, { "text": "graduation. On the other hand, a foreign national can be in lawful status", "paragraph_id": "para_500" }, { "text": "but not admitted—think of someone who entered the country unlawfully,", "paragraph_id": "para_501" }, { "text": "but then received asylum.”). Nevertheless, an arriving alien—like an", "paragraph_id": "para_502" }, { "text": "unadmitted illegal alien—is “deemed” to be an “applicant for admission.”", "paragraph_id": "para_503" }, { "text": "8 U.S.C. § 1225(a).", "paragraph_id": "para_504" }, { "text": "3 See Lemus-Losa v. Holder, 576 F.3d 752, 757 (7th Cir. 2009) (“We have no", "paragraph_id": "para_505" }, { "text": "reason to disagree with the Board’s position that the word ‘admission’", "paragraph_id": "para_506" }, { "text": "means different things, depending on the particular part of the INA that is", "paragraph_id": "para_507" }, { "text": "at issue.”); Rosas-Ramirez, 22 I. & N. Dec. at 623 n.5 (“We do not here", "paragraph_id": "para_508" }, { "text": "attempt to resolve the meaning of ‘admission’ in other contexts or under", "paragraph_id": "para_509" }, { "text": "other provisions for adjustment of status.”).", "paragraph_id": "para_510" }, { "text": "9", "paragraph_id": "para_511" }, { "text": "Second, the panel misunderstood how the deeming provision", "paragraph_id": "para_512" }, { "text": "interacts with the detention provision. The panel wrongly asserted", "paragraph_id": "para_513" }, { "text": "that “‘applicant for admission’ is defined by statute” and therefore", "paragraph_id": "para_514" }, { "text": "receives a “technical meaning” as a “term of art.” Barbosa da Cunha,", "paragraph_id": "para_515" }, { "text": "175 F.4th at 74-76 (emphasis added). But the INA does not provide a", "paragraph_id": "para_516" }, { "text": "definition of “applicant for admission.” That phrase does not appear", "paragraph_id": "para_517" }, { "text": "in the extensive list of defined statutory terms. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101. The", "paragraph_id": "para_518" }, { "text": "deeming provision simply says that an unadmitted illegal alien “shall", "paragraph_id": "para_519" }, { "text": "be deemed” to be an applicant for admission even when he has not", "paragraph_id": "para_520" }, { "text": "actually applied. Id. § 1225(a)(1).4 The statute thereby directs that the", "paragraph_id": "para_521" }, { "text": "requirements that apply to an actual applicant for admission—an", "paragraph_id": "para_522" }, { "text": "arriving alien who presents himself for inspection with entry", "paragraph_id": "para_523" }, { "text": "documents at a port of entry—must also be applied to an unadmitted", "paragraph_id": "para_524" }, { "text": "alien who is illegally present after avoiding inspection.", "paragraph_id": "para_525" }, { "text": "Although the unadmitted illegal alien must be treated as if he", "paragraph_id": "para_526" }, { "text": "were an “applicant for admission,” the phrase “applicant for", "paragraph_id": "para_527" }, { "text": "admission” itself lacks a statutory definition and therefore receives its", "paragraph_id": "para_528" }, { "text": "plain meaning. The phrase refers to someone who has applied for", "paragraph_id": "para_529" }, { "text": "admission.5 The deeming provision tells us to treat an unadmitted", "paragraph_id": "para_530" }, { "text": "illegal alien as if he has applied for admission. As a result, we must", "paragraph_id": "para_531" }, { "text": "4 In other words, the deeming provision “does not ‘define’ ‘applicant for", "paragraph_id": "para_532" }, { "text": "admission’” because it says “nothing about what ‘applicants for admission’", "paragraph_id": "para_533" }, { "text": "means.” Hernandez Alvarez, 175 F.4th at 1288-89 (Lagoa, J., dissenting).", "paragraph_id": "para_534" }, { "text": "Instead, “Congress told us what unadmitted aliens, like Petitioner, are to be", "paragraph_id": "para_535" }, { "text": "treated as.” Id. at 1289. The INA includes numerous deeming provisions that", "paragraph_id": "para_536" }, { "text": "direct how persons, time periods, and locations must be treated. None of", "paragraph_id": "para_537" }, { "text": "those provisions defines a term. See, e.g., 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(9)(B)(ii);", "paragraph_id": "para_538" }, { "text": "id. § 1255(g); id. § 1229b(d)(1); id. § 1441; id. § 1182(n)(4)(A).", "paragraph_id": "para_539" }, { "text": "5 See Barbosa da Cunha, 175 F.4th at 75 (“‘Applicant’ ordinarily means ‘one", "paragraph_id": "para_540" }, { "text": "who applies for something.’”) (quoting Applicant, Webster’s Third New", "paragraph_id": "para_541" }, { "text": "International Dictionary 105 (1993)).", "paragraph_id": "para_542" }, { "text": "10", "paragraph_id": "para_543" }, { "text": "treat an unadmitted illegal alien as if he is taking the action—seeking", "paragraph_id": "para_544" }, { "text": "admission—that an applicant for admission would be taking. “The", "paragraph_id": "para_545" }, { "text": "principle is straightforward. When a statute deems ‘A’ to be ‘B,’ it", "paragraph_id": "para_546" }, { "text": "places A in the legal posture of B as a matter of law, with the", "paragraph_id": "para_547" }, { "text": "consequences that follow.” Hernandez Alvarez, 175 F.4th at 1289", "paragraph_id": "para_548" }, { "text": "(Lagoa, J., dissenting).", "paragraph_id": "para_549" }, { "text": "In this case, the statute deems an unadmitted illegal alien to be", "paragraph_id": "para_550" }, { "text": "an applicant for admission. We know that the unadmitted illegal alien", "paragraph_id": "para_551" }, { "text": "has not actually applied for anything—he has instead bypassed the", "paragraph_id": "para_552" }, { "text": "process of inspection and admission—but we treat him as if he has", "paragraph_id": "para_553" }, { "text": "applied for admission. So is that alien seeking admission? Of course", "paragraph_id": "para_554" }, { "text": "he is. People who apply for something are seeking it, so the", "paragraph_id": "para_555" }, { "text": "constructive applicant for admission must be regarded as seeking", "paragraph_id": "para_556" }, { "text": "admission. That is what an applicant for admission necessarily does.", "paragraph_id": "para_557" }, { "text": "“Because we must ‘regard’ the [p]etitioners ‘as’ ‘seeking admission’", "paragraph_id": "para_558" }, { "text": "under the ordinary meaning of ‘applicant,’ we must regard them as", "paragraph_id": "para_559" }, { "text": "‘seeking admission’ under [the statutory] language.” Lopez-Campos,", "paragraph_id": "para_560" }, { "text": "175 F.4th at 741 (Murphy, J., dissenting) (alterations and citation", "paragraph_id": "para_561" }, { "text": "omitted). “[B]y ‘deeming’ certain immigrants to be ‘applicants for", "paragraph_id": "para_562" }, { "text": "admission’ under the INA, the law commands us to treat them as if", "paragraph_id": "para_563" }, { "text": "they were applying for (or seeking) admission wherever the INA uses", "paragraph_id": "para_564" }, { "text": "those phrases—whether or not they ‘actually’ are doing so.” Id.", "paragraph_id": "para_565" }, { "text": "(alterations and citation omitted).", "paragraph_id": "para_566" }, { "text": "The panel’s error can be seen in its own analogy to a baseball", "paragraph_id": "para_567" }, { "text": "game. The panel imagined the following scenario:", "paragraph_id": "para_568" }, { "text": "If someone sneaks into Yankee Stadium at the start of the", "paragraph_id": "para_569" }, { "text": "game with no ticket for admission (and no intention of", "paragraph_id": "para_570" }, { "text": "ever paying) and he is later found by security in a seat in", "paragraph_id": "para_571" }, { "text": "the seventh inning, no one would consider that fan to be", "paragraph_id": "para_572" }, { "text": "“seeking admission” to the game.", "paragraph_id": "para_573" }, { "text": "11", "paragraph_id": "para_574" }, { "text": "Barbosa da Cunha, 175 F.4th at 76. That is correct, as far as it goes. But", "paragraph_id": "para_575" }, { "text": "now imagine that the Yankees had a policy posted at the stadium gate", "paragraph_id": "para_576" }, { "text": "that stated: “Anyone found inside the stadium without a ticket shall", "paragraph_id": "para_577" }, { "text": "be deemed to be an applicant for admission to the game.” In light of", "paragraph_id": "para_578" }, { "text": "the deeming policy, the ticketless fan would be considered to be", "paragraph_id": "para_579" }, { "text": "seeking admission to the game. And he properly would be charged", "paragraph_id": "para_580" }, { "text": "the price of admission. The fan could not avoid paying for a ticket on", "paragraph_id": "para_581" }, { "text": "the ground that even though he must be considered an “applicant for", "paragraph_id": "para_582" }, { "text": "admission” to the game, he is not really seeking admission and would", "paragraph_id": "para_583" }, { "text": "prefer to remain without paying. That would be an evasion of the", "paragraph_id": "para_584" }, { "text": "deeming policy. The same logic applies here: Just as the fan who", "paragraph_id": "para_585" }, { "text": "bypasses the ticket counter to enter the stadium is deemed to be", "paragraph_id": "para_586" }, { "text": "seeking admission, the alien who bypasses immigration inspectors to", "paragraph_id": "para_587" }, { "text": "enter the country is deemed to be seeking admission as well.", "paragraph_id": "para_588" }, { "text": "B", "paragraph_id": "para_589" }, { "text": "The panel failed to give effect to the deeming provision. That", "paragraph_id": "para_590" }, { "text": "provision does not direct that unadmitted illegal aliens be treated “as", "paragraph_id": "para_591" }, { "text": "‘applicants for admission’ exclusively for that phrase” but rather that", "paragraph_id": "para_592" }, { "text": "unadmitted illegal aliens be treated as applicants for admission", "paragraph_id": "para_593" }, { "text": "“when interpreting the rest of the INA (including phrases like", "paragraph_id": "para_594" }, { "text": "‘applying for admission’ or ‘seeking admission’).” Lopez-Campos,", "paragraph_id": "para_595" }, { "text": "175 F.4th at 741 (Murphy, J., dissenting). According to the logic of the", "paragraph_id": "para_596" }, { "text": "panel opinion, “Congress told us to treat certain immigrants as", "paragraph_id": "para_597" }, { "text": "‘applicants for admission’ in one paragraph (§ 1225(a)(1)) but then", "paragraph_id": "para_598" }, { "text": "expected us to not treat those immigrants as ‘applying for admission’", "paragraph_id": "para_599" }, { "text": "just three paragraphs later (§ 1225(a)(4)).” Id. at 743. That", "paragraph_id": "para_600" }, { "text": "interpretation makes no sense. The deeming provision provides that", "paragraph_id": "para_601" }, { "text": "an unadmitted illegal alien must be treated as an applicant for", "paragraph_id": "para_602" }, { "text": "admission “for purposes of this chapter,” meaning the entire INA.", "paragraph_id": "para_603" }, { "text": "8 U.S.C. § 1225(a)(1). Whatever requirements the INA applies to an", "paragraph_id": "para_604" }, { "text": "12", "paragraph_id": "para_605" }, { "text": "actual applicant for admission must also be applied to a constructive", "paragraph_id": "para_606" }, { "text": "applicant for admission. Because an actual applicant for admission is", "paragraph_id": "para_607" }, { "text": "seeking admission, so is a constructive applicant for admission.", "paragraph_id": "para_608" }, { "text": "The BIA clarified this aspect of the INA in 2012. In Matter of", "paragraph_id": "para_609" }, { "text": "Lemus-Losa, the BIA considered a case involving a Mexican citizen", "paragraph_id": "para_610" }, { "text": "who “entered the United States without inspection, after which he", "paragraph_id": "para_611" }, { "text": "lived in the United States for approximately 2 years without lawful", "paragraph_id": "para_612" }, { "text": "status.” 25 I. & N. Dec. at 735. He subsequently “departed from the", "paragraph_id": "para_613" }, { "text": "United States and returned to Mexico. In 2003, [he] reentered the", "paragraph_id": "para_614" }, { "text": "United States, again without inspection, and … remained here in", "paragraph_id": "para_615" }, { "text": "unlawful status.” Id.", "paragraph_id": "para_616" }, { "text": "The government commenced removal proceedings. Before the", "paragraph_id": "para_617" }, { "text": "immigration court, Lemus-Losa “conceded removability from the", "paragraph_id": "para_618" }, { "text": "United States” because he was “present without having been", "paragraph_id": "para_619" }, { "text": "admitted or paroled,” but “he applied for adjustment of status.” Id.", "paragraph_id": "para_620" }, { "text": "To qualify for an adjustment, “an applicant must be ‘physically", "paragraph_id": "para_621" }, { "text": "present in the United States’ and must demonstrate that he or she is", "paragraph_id": "para_622" }, { "text": "‘admissible to the United States for permanent residence.’” Id.", "paragraph_id": "para_623" }, { "text": "(quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1255(i)(1), (2)(A)). The immigration judge", "paragraph_id": "para_624" }, { "text": "concluded that Lemus-Losa was not admissible for permanent", "paragraph_id": "para_625" }, { "text": "residence “because his history of immigration violations rendered", "paragraph_id": "para_626" }, { "text": "him inadmissible” pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(9)(B)(i)(II). Id. That", "paragraph_id": "para_627" }, { "text": "provision provides that an alien who “has been unlawfully present in", "paragraph_id": "para_628" }, { "text": "the United States for one year or more, and who again seeks admission", "paragraph_id": "para_629" }, { "text": "within 10 years of the date of such alien’s departure or removal from", "paragraph_id": "para_630" }, { "text": "the United States, is inadmissible.” 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(9)(B)(i)(II)", "paragraph_id": "para_631" }, { "text": "(emphasis added).", "paragraph_id": "para_632" }, { "text": "The question before the BIA was whether Lemus-Losa was", "paragraph_id": "para_633" }, { "text": "“again seek[ing] admission.” Id. The BIA recognized that “[i]n", "paragraph_id": "para_634" }, { "text": "13", "paragraph_id": "para_635" }, { "text": "ordinary parlance, the phrase ‘seeks admission’ connotes a request for", "paragraph_id": "para_636" }, { "text": "permission to enter.” Lemus-Losa, 25 I. & N. Dec. at 743. “The problem,", "paragraph_id": "para_637" }, { "text": "however, is that Congress has defined the concept of an ‘applicant for", "paragraph_id": "para_638" }, { "text": "admission’ in an unconventional sense, to include not just those who", "paragraph_id": "para_639" }, { "text": "are expressly seeking permission to enter, but also those who are", "paragraph_id": "para_640" }, { "text": "present in this country without having formally requested or received", "paragraph_id": "para_641" }, { "text": "such permission.” Id. As a result, “many people who are not actually", "paragraph_id": "para_642" }, { "text": "requesting permission to enter the United States in the ordinary sense", "paragraph_id": "para_643" }, { "text": "are nevertheless deemed to be ‘seeking admission’ under the", "paragraph_id": "para_644" }, { "text": "immigration laws.” Id.", "paragraph_id": "para_645" }, { "text": "The BIA acknowledged that in a “prior decision, confusion", "paragraph_id": "para_646" }, { "text": "about the proper meaning of the phrase ‘seeks admission’ led us to", "paragraph_id": "para_647" }, { "text": "commit an error, which we now correct.” Id. at 743 n.6. In the prior", "paragraph_id": "para_648" }, { "text": "decision, the members of the BIA “declared ourselves ‘at a loss’", "paragraph_id": "para_649" }, { "text": "to explain Congress’s inclusion of the word ‘again’ in", "paragraph_id": "para_650" }, { "text": "[§ 1182(a)(9)(B)(i)(II)], since the rest of the statutory language did not", "paragraph_id": "para_651" }, { "text": "seem to require the alien to have previously ‘applied for admission’", "paragraph_id": "para_652" }, { "text": "in the ordinary sense of that phrase.” Id. (quoting In re Lemus-Losa,", "paragraph_id": "para_653" }, { "text": "24 I. & N. Dec. 373, 376 n.3 (BIA 2007)). The BIA explained that", "paragraph_id": "para_654" }, { "text": "“[b]ecause we did not then understand that Congress was using the", "paragraph_id": "para_655" }, { "text": "phrase ‘seeks admission’ as a term of art, we presumed that the word", "paragraph_id": "para_656" }, { "text": "‘again’ must have been inserted into the statute through a drafting", "paragraph_id": "para_657" }, { "text": "error.” Id. And here is the crucial point for our case:", "paragraph_id": "para_658" }, { "text": "What we failed to discern is that all aliens who have", "paragraph_id": "para_659" }, { "text": "accrued past periods of “unlawful presence” in the", "paragraph_id": "para_660" }, { "text": "United States have necessarily been “applicants for", "paragraph_id": "para_661" }, { "text": "admission” at some point in the past. That is, they had", "paragraph_id": "para_662" }, { "text": "either been true applicants for admission at some point", "paragraph_id": "para_663" }, { "text": "(in that they had entered the United States with visas or", "paragraph_id": "para_664" }, { "text": "other entry documents before their presence became", "paragraph_id": "para_665" }, { "text": "unlawful) or they had entered unlawfully or been", "paragraph_id": "para_666" }, { "text": "14", "paragraph_id": "para_667" }, { "text": "paroled into the United States but were deemed", "paragraph_id": "para_668" }, { "text": "constructive applicants for admission by operation of [the", "paragraph_id": "para_669" }, { "text": "deeming provision of § 1225(a)(1)]. Thus, any alien who", "paragraph_id": "para_670" }, { "text": "applies for admission to the United States after accruing", "paragraph_id": "para_671" }, { "text": "a prior period of unlawful presence is, in a very", "paragraph_id": "para_672" }, { "text": "meaningful (if sometimes artificial) sense, “again", "paragraph_id": "para_673" }, { "text": "seek[ing] admission.”", "paragraph_id": "para_674" }, { "text": "Id. (second alteration in original). The BIA thus explained that the", "paragraph_id": "para_675" }, { "text": "deeming provision treats an unadmitted illegal alien as an applicant", "paragraph_id": "para_676" }, { "text": "for admission. Because an actual applicant for admission would have", "paragraph_id": "para_677" }, { "text": "been seeking admission, the unadmitted illegal alien is also treated as", "paragraph_id": "para_678" }, { "text": "if he were seeking admission during his period of unlawful presence.", "paragraph_id": "para_679" }, { "text": "So when an alien with a prior period of unlawful presence reenters", "paragraph_id": "para_680" }, { "text": "and applies for admission for the first actual time, the INA treats", "paragraph_id": "para_681" }, { "text": "him as someone “who again seeks admission.” 8 U.S.C.", "paragraph_id": "para_682" }, { "text": "§ 1182(a)(9)(B)(i)(II) (emphasis added). The BIA accordingly treated a", "paragraph_id": "para_683" }, { "text": "constructive applicant for admission as someone who was seeking", "paragraph_id": "para_684" }, { "text": "admission.", "paragraph_id": "para_685" }, { "text": "The informed judgment of the BIA as to how the INA operates", "paragraph_id": "para_686" }, { "text": "shows that the panel erred when interpreting the statute.6 The panel", "paragraph_id": "para_687" }, { "text": "was correct that Barbosa da Cunha was not “seeking admission” in", "paragraph_id": "para_688" }, { "text": "an ordinary sense.7 But it was a mistake to conclude that an alien who", "paragraph_id": "para_689" }, { "text": "6 See Singh v. Bondi, 139 F.4th 189, 202 n.7 (2d Cir. 2025) (“In an agency case", "paragraph_id": "para_690" }, { "text": "in particular, the reviewing court will go about its task with the agency’s", "paragraph_id": "para_691" }, { "text": "body of experience and informed judgment, among other information, at", "paragraph_id": "para_692" }, { "text": "its disposal.”) (alteration omitted) (quoting Loper Bright Enters. v. Raimondo,", "paragraph_id": "para_693" }, { "text": "603 U.S. 369, 374 (2024)).", "paragraph_id": "para_694" }, { "text": "7 Those opinions that agree with the panel have similarly relied on the", "paragraph_id": "para_695" }, { "text": "ordinary meaning of “seeking admission.” See Lopez-Campos, 175 F.4th at", "paragraph_id": "para_696" }, { "text": "722-23 (“Contemporary dictionary definitions of ‘seek’ or ‘seeking’ confirm", "paragraph_id": "para_697" }, { "text": "the words’ requirement that the noncitizen engage in some affirmative act", "paragraph_id": "para_698" }, { "text": "15", "paragraph_id": "para_699" }, { "text": "is not actually seeking admission is not constructively seeking", "paragraph_id": "para_700" }, { "text": "admission for purposes of the INA. As the BIA has recognized, the", "paragraph_id": "para_701" }, { "text": "deeming provision requires that an unadmitted illegal alien who is", "paragraph_id": "para_702" }, { "text": "not actually seeking admission be treated as if he were.", "paragraph_id": "para_703" }, { "text": "The panel dismissed the significance of the BIA’s decision in", "paragraph_id": "para_704" }, { "text": "Lemus-Losa. The panel wrote that “even if Lemus-Losa were correct, it", "paragraph_id": "para_705" }, { "text": "would not support the government’s position in this case” because", "paragraph_id": "para_706" }, { "text": "“even if noncitizens like [Barbosa da Cunha] are construed as having", "paragraph_id": "para_707" }, { "text": "sought admission at some point in the past, it does not follow that", "paragraph_id": "para_708" }, { "text": "they are presently seeking admission.” Barbosa da Cunha, 175 F.4th", "paragraph_id": "para_709" }, { "text": "at 83. The panel argued that “for Lemus-Losa’s interpretation of", "paragraph_id": "para_710" }, { "text": "Section 1182(a)(9) to work, noncitizens who ‘again seek admission’", "paragraph_id": "para_711" }, { "text": "must have at some point stopped seeking admission. But merely", "paragraph_id": "para_712" }, { "text": "departing the country does not necessarily end one’s process of", "paragraph_id": "para_713" }, { "text": "‘seeking admission’ because, as the BIA recognized, ‘many aliens will", "paragraph_id": "para_714" }, { "text": "be outside the United States and seeking admission from abroad.’” Id.", "paragraph_id": "para_715" }, { "text": "(alteration omitted) (quoting Lemus-Losa, 25 I. & N. Dec. at 741).", "paragraph_id": "para_716" }, { "text": "That response misses the point. If an alien is constructively", "paragraph_id": "para_717" }, { "text": "seeking admission by virtue of his illegal presence, then he is no", "paragraph_id": "para_718" }, { "text": "longer seeking admission when he ends his illegal presence. If the", "paragraph_id": "para_719" }, { "text": "alien later actually applies for admission from abroad, he would be", "paragraph_id": "para_720" }, { "text": "or attempt towards ‘admission.’”); Hernandez Alvarez, 175 F.4th at 1267-68", "paragraph_id": "para_721" }, { "text": "(“Congress has not specifically defined ‘seeking.’ The term, which functions", "paragraph_id": "para_722" }, { "text": "as an adjectival modifier of the noun ‘an alien,’ must be afforded its", "paragraph_id": "para_723" }, { "text": "ordinary meaning—indicating an affirmative step of search or pursuit.”);", "paragraph_id": "para_724" }, { "text": "Castañon-Nava v. DHS, 175 F.4th 828, 846 (7th Cir. 2026) (opinion of Lee, J.)", "paragraph_id": "para_725" }, { "text": "(“[P]rominent dictionaries defined the verb ‘to seek’ to mean: ‘to resort to’;", "paragraph_id": "para_726" }, { "text": "‘to go to’; ‘to go in search of’; ‘look for’; ‘acquire or gain’; ‘aim at’; ‘to make", "paragraph_id": "para_727" }, { "text": "an attempt.’”); Buenrostro-Mendez, 166 F.4th at 511 (Douglas, J., dissenting)", "paragraph_id": "para_728" }, { "text": "(“The ordinary meaning of ‘seek’ requires some present, active action on", "paragraph_id": "para_729" }, { "text": "the seeker’s part.”).", "paragraph_id": "para_730" }, { "text": "16", "paragraph_id": "para_731" }, { "text": "seeking admission for the second time. That was what the BIA", "paragraph_id": "para_732" }, { "text": "explained: “[A]ny alien who applies for admission to the United", "paragraph_id": "para_733" }, { "text": "States after accruing a prior period of unlawful presence is … ‘again", "paragraph_id": "para_734" }, { "text": "seek[ing] admission.’” Lemus-Losa, 25 I. & N. Dec. at 743 n.6 (second", "paragraph_id": "para_735" }, { "text": "alteration in original). In fact, the alien would not need to leave the", "paragraph_id": "para_736" }, { "text": "country to file a second application. Under the INA, “all aliens who", "paragraph_id": "para_737" }, { "text": "have accrued past periods of ‘unlawful presence’ in the United States", "paragraph_id": "para_738" }, { "text": "have necessarily been ‘applicants for admission.’” Id. If after accruing", "paragraph_id": "para_739" }, { "text": "a past period of unlawful presence the alien applied for an adjustment", "paragraph_id": "para_740" }, { "text": "of status, the alien would be “again seek[ing] admission.” Id.", "paragraph_id": "para_741" }, { "text": "(alteration in original).", "paragraph_id": "para_742" }, { "text": "In any event, this case does not require a court to decide when", "paragraph_id": "para_743" }, { "text": "exactly an alien would be again seeking admission. The detention", "paragraph_id": "para_744" }, { "text": "provision does not require the alien to be seeking admission for a", "paragraph_id": "para_745" }, { "text": "second time. It requires only that the alien be considered to be", "paragraph_id": "para_746" }, { "text": "“seeking admission” while he is considered to be an applicant for", "paragraph_id": "para_747" }, { "text": "admission. 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A). Because Barbosa da Cunha was", "paragraph_id": "para_748" }, { "text": "unadmitted and illegally present when arrested and inspected, he", "paragraph_id": "para_749" }, { "text": "was “deemed to be ‘seeking admission’ under the immigration laws.”", "paragraph_id": "para_750" }, { "text": "Lemus-Losa, 25 I. & N. Dec. at 743. And that means the detention", "paragraph_id": "para_751" }, { "text": "provision applied to him.", "paragraph_id": "para_752" }, { "text": "C", "paragraph_id": "para_753" }, { "text": "It is common—in the immigration context and elsewhere—that", "paragraph_id": "para_754" }, { "text": "a statute will treat a person as doing at law something he is not", "paragraph_id": "para_755" }, { "text": "actually doing. Frequently a “linguistic point is not dispositive.", "paragraph_id": "para_756" }, { "text": "‘When the American legal system interprets a text, the process often", "paragraph_id": "para_757" }, { "text": "looks nothing like a straightforward search for linguistic meaning.’", "paragraph_id": "para_758" }, { "text": "The ultimate objective is to determine the meaning the law assigns to", "paragraph_id": "para_759" }, { "text": "the text and therefore its legal effect.” United States v. Scott, 990 F.3d", "paragraph_id": "para_760" }, { "text": "17", "paragraph_id": "para_761" }, { "text": "94, 128 (2d Cir. 2021) (Menashi, J., concurring in part and concurring", "paragraph_id": "para_762" }, { "text": "in the judgment) (footnote omitted) (quoting William Baude &", "paragraph_id": "para_763" }, { "text": "Stephen E. Sachs, The Law of Interpretation, 130 Harv. L. Rev. 1079, 1088", "paragraph_id": "para_764" }, { "text": "(2017)).", "paragraph_id": "para_765" }, { "text": "When a lawful permanent resident seeks to reenter the country,", "paragraph_id": "para_766" }, { "text": "for example, Congress has directed that he “shall not be regarded as", "paragraph_id": "para_767" }, { "text": "seeking an admission into the United States for purposes of the", "paragraph_id": "para_768" }, { "text": "immigration laws.” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(13)(C). Even though that is", "paragraph_id": "para_769" }, { "text": "what the lawful permanent resident is actually doing as a matter of", "paragraph_id": "para_770" }, { "text": "plain meaning, the law treats him as if he were not.", "paragraph_id": "para_771" }, { "text": "To take another illustrative example, a regulation of the", "paragraph_id": "para_772" }, { "text": "Department of Transportation determines when an employee has", "paragraph_id": "para_773" }, { "text": "“refused to take a drug test.” 49 C.F.R. § 40.191(a). The regulation", "paragraph_id": "para_774" }, { "text": "explains that “[a]s an employee, you have refused to take a drug test", "paragraph_id": "para_775" }, { "text": "if you” (1) “[f]ail to appear for any test (except a pre-employment test)", "paragraph_id": "para_776" }, { "text": "within a reasonable time,” id. § 40.191(a)(1); (2) “[f]ail to remain at the", "paragraph_id": "para_777" }, { "text": "testing site until the testing process is complete,” id. § 40.191(a)(2); or", "paragraph_id": "para_778" }, { "text": "(3) “[f]ail to provide a sufficient amount of specimen when directed,”", "paragraph_id": "para_779" }, { "text": "id. § 40.191(a)(5). In none of these circumstances has the employee", "paragraph_id": "para_780" }, { "text": "directly or even necessarily refused to take the drug test. But the", "paragraph_id": "para_781" }, { "text": "regulation deems the employee to have refused. The regulation later", "paragraph_id": "para_782" }, { "text": "explains that “[a]s an employee, if you refuse to take a drug test, you", "paragraph_id": "para_783" }, { "text": "incur the consequences specified under DOT agency regulations.” Id.", "paragraph_id": "para_784" }, { "text": "§ 40.191(c). Those consequences apply not only to those who have", "paragraph_id": "para_785" }, { "text": "actually refused the test but also to those who have constructively", "paragraph_id": "para_786" }, { "text": "refused. See, e.g., Bass v. Fed. Motor Carrier Safety Admin., 817", "paragraph_id": "para_787" }, { "text": "F. Supp. 3d 1, 4 (D.D.C. 2025) (explaining that an employee was", "paragraph_id": "para_788" }, { "text": "“deemed to have refused the second drug test” because he left “the", "paragraph_id": "para_789" }, { "text": "collection site before a drug testing process [was] complete”) (internal", "paragraph_id": "para_790" }, { "text": "quotation marks omitted).", "paragraph_id": "para_791" }, { "text": "18", "paragraph_id": "para_792" }, { "text": "A statute in Massachusetts requires an optometrist registered", "paragraph_id": "para_793" }, { "text": "under state law to apply for and to take an examination if he wants to", "paragraph_id": "para_794" }, { "text": "engage in “the use and prescription of therapeutic pharmaceutical", "paragraph_id": "para_795" }, { "text": "agents.” Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 112, § 68C(b). The statute then provides", "paragraph_id": "para_796" }, { "text": "that “[a]n optometrist licensed in another jurisdiction shall be deemed", "paragraph_id": "para_797" }, { "text": "an applicant under this section by the board of registration in", "paragraph_id": "para_798" }, { "text": "optometry.” Id. § 68C(c) (emphasis added). The board then requires", "paragraph_id": "para_799" }, { "text": "those constructive applicants to meet the standards set for actual", "paragraph_id": "para_800" }, { "text": "applicants. See id.", "paragraph_id": "para_801" }, { "text": "It makes sense that Massachusetts would treat an optometrist", "paragraph_id": "para_802" }, { "text": "with an out-of-state license as if he were seeking the same permission", "paragraph_id": "para_803" }, { "text": "to practice that Massachusetts requires of in-state licensees. It makes", "paragraph_id": "para_804" }, { "text": "sense that the Yankees would treat a fan who snuck by the ticket", "paragraph_id": "para_805" }, { "text": "counter as if he were seeking a paid ticket to the game. And it makes", "paragraph_id": "para_806" }, { "text": "sense that Congress would treat an alien who entered the United", "paragraph_id": "para_807" }, { "text": "States without being admitted as if he were seeking a lawful entry to", "paragraph_id": "para_808" }, { "text": "the country. What does not make sense is the panel’s inconsistent", "paragraph_id": "para_809" }, { "text": "interpretation of the INA. The panel’s view is that an unadmitted", "paragraph_id": "para_810" }, { "text": "illegal alien is treated as an “applicant for admission” by virtue of his", "paragraph_id": "para_811" }, { "text": "unlawful presence but, at the same time, he cannot be treated as", "paragraph_id": "para_812" }, { "text": "“seeking admission” unless he has literally applied for admission at", "paragraph_id": "para_813" }, { "text": "the border. Yet Congress directed that an unadmitted illegal alien", "paragraph_id": "para_814" }, { "text": "must be treated as an applicant for admission for purposes of the INA.", "paragraph_id": "para_815" }, { "text": "It violates that mandate to refuse to treat that alien as if he were doing", "paragraph_id": "para_816" }, { "text": "what all applicants for admission are necessarily doing: seeking", "paragraph_id": "para_817" }, { "text": "admission.", "paragraph_id": "para_818" }, { "text": "D", "paragraph_id": "para_819" }, { "text": "The panel offered several other arguments to defend its", "paragraph_id": "para_820" }, { "text": "inconsistent application of the deeming provision. None is", "paragraph_id": "para_821" }, { "text": "19", "paragraph_id": "para_822" }, { "text": "persuasive. First, the panel offered a counterintuitive and implausible", "paragraph_id": "para_823" }, { "text": "interpretation of the phrase “or otherwise” in 8 U.S.C. § 1225(a)(3).", "paragraph_id": "para_824" }, { "text": "But that provision indicates that an applicant for admission is", "paragraph_id": "para_825" }, { "text": "necessarily seeking admission. Second, the panel insisted that the", "paragraph_id": "para_826" }, { "text": "government’s interpretation renders part of the detention provision", "paragraph_id": "para_827" }, { "text": "superfluous. But the panel’s interpretation creates a much worse", "paragraph_id": "para_828" }, { "text": "superfluity problem. Third, the panel claimed to find support for its", "paragraph_id": "para_829" }, { "text": "position in the opinion of the Supreme Court in Jennings v. Rodriguez,", "paragraph_id": "para_830" }, { "text": "583 U.S. 281 (2018). But that decision undermines the panel’s", "paragraph_id": "para_831" }, { "text": "interpretation of the detention provision. Fourth, the panel insisted", "paragraph_id": "para_832" }, { "text": "that the executive branch interpreted the detention provision", "paragraph_id": "para_833" }, { "text": "contemporaneously with its enactment not to apply to unadmitted", "paragraph_id": "para_834" }, { "text": "illegal aliens. But the opposite is true. Fifth, the panel relied on the", "paragraph_id": "para_835" }, { "text": "canon of constitutional avoidance. But the government’s", "paragraph_id": "para_836" }, { "text": "interpretation of the detention provision raises no constitutional", "paragraph_id": "para_837" }, { "text": "problems.", "paragraph_id": "para_838" }, { "text": "1", "paragraph_id": "para_839" }, { "text": "The panel sought support for its interpretation of the detention", "paragraph_id": "para_840" }, { "text": "provision in other provisions of the INA. But the statutory context", "paragraph_id": "para_841" }, { "text": "shows that its interpretation is wrong.", "paragraph_id": "para_842" }, { "text": "The panel identified 8 U.S.C. § 1225(a)(3), which provides that", "paragraph_id": "para_843" }, { "text": "“[a]ll aliens (including alien crewmen) who are applicants for", "paragraph_id": "para_844" }, { "text": "admission or otherwise seeking admission or readmission to or", "paragraph_id": "para_845" }, { "text": "transit through the United States shall be inspected by immigration", "paragraph_id": "para_846" }, { "text": "officers.” The government argues that § 1225(a)(3) supports its", "paragraph_id": "para_847" }, { "text": "interpretation of the detention provision because the language", "paragraph_id": "para_848" }, { "text": "“applicants for admission or otherwise seeking admission” indicates", "paragraph_id": "para_849" }, { "text": "that applicants for admission are a subset of those who are seeking", "paragraph_id": "para_850" }, { "text": "20", "paragraph_id": "para_851" }, { "text": "admission. And that means that applicants for admission are", "paragraph_id": "para_852" }, { "text": "necessarily seeking admission.", "paragraph_id": "para_853" }, { "text": "The panel acknowledged that “the government is correct that", "paragraph_id": "para_854" }, { "text": "‘or otherwise’ can sometimes mean ‘in a different way or manner.’”", "paragraph_id": "para_855" }, { "text": "Barbosa da Cunha, 175 F.4th at 78. When the librarian says not to", "paragraph_id": "para_856" }, { "text": "“engage in loud conversation or otherwise disrupt the library", "paragraph_id": "para_857" }, { "text": "atmosphere,” she has identified loud conversation as one way to", "paragraph_id": "para_858" }, { "text": "disrupt the library atmosphere. But the panel said that the same", "paragraph_id": "para_859" }, { "text": "phrase “can also simply ‘refer to something that is different from", "paragraph_id": "para_860" }, { "text": "something already mentioned.’”8 The online dictionary on which the", "paragraph_id": "para_861" }, { "text": "panel relied gives this example: “Intentionally or otherwise, they never", "paragraph_id": "para_862" }, { "text": "told her about the party.” That sentence conveys that they never told", "paragraph_id": "para_863" }, { "text": "her about the party either intentionally or in another way that was not", "paragraph_id": "para_864" }, { "text": "intentional—such as accidentally or unwittingly.", "paragraph_id": "para_865" }, { "text": "The panel decided that § 1225(a)(3) reflects the latter", "paragraph_id": "para_866" }, { "text": "disjunctive usage based on its own question-begging assertion that", "paragraph_id": "para_867" }, { "text": "“‘applicant for admission’ is not narrower or more specific than ‘alien", "paragraph_id": "para_868" }, { "text": "seeking admission.’” Barbosa da Cunha, 175 F.4th at 79. The panel", "paragraph_id": "para_869" }, { "text": "concluded that § 1225(a)(3) “applies to applicants for admission, and", "paragraph_id": "para_870" }, { "text": "also applies to three further categories of noncitizens, which may", "paragraph_id": "para_871" }, { "text": "overlap with but are not the same as ‘applicant for admission.’” Id.", "paragraph_id": "para_872" }, { "text": "at 80. But the concession that the categories overlap undermines the", "paragraph_id": "para_873" }, { "text": "panel’s argument. If the categories overlap, then it cannot be said that", "paragraph_id": "para_874" }, { "text": "the statute uses the phrase “or otherwise” to “refer to something that", "paragraph_id": "para_875" }, { "text": "is different” from being an applicant for admission. Id. at 78. If what", "paragraph_id": "para_876" }, { "text": "follows “or otherwise” overlaps with what precedes it, then the", "paragraph_id": "para_877" }, { "text": "8 Barbosa da Cunha, 175 F.4th at 78 (quoting Or otherwise, Merriam-Webster", "paragraph_id": "para_878" }, { "text": "Online, https://perma.cc/9F9H-PH6Q).", "paragraph_id": "para_879" }, { "text": "21", "paragraph_id": "para_880" }, { "text": "phrase is being used in the conjunctive sense to refer to a “subset-", "paragraph_id": "para_881" }, { "text": "superset” relationship. Id.9", "paragraph_id": "para_882" }, { "text": "In fact, a subset-superset relationship is exactly what", "paragraph_id": "para_883" }, { "text": "§ 1225(a)(3) describes. The panel was wrong that “applicant for", "paragraph_id": "para_884" }, { "text": "admission” is a more “general” term than the “more specific”", "paragraph_id": "para_885" }, { "text": "category of “seeking admission.” Id. at 79-80. Even circuits that have", "paragraph_id": "para_886" }, { "text": "ultimately agreed with the panel recognize that “a non-applicant for", "paragraph_id": "para_887" }, { "text": "admission may nevertheless be seeking admission.” Lopez-Campos,", "paragraph_id": "para_888" }, { "text": "175 F.4th at 727. An “arriving alien who is a stowaway,” for example,", "paragraph_id": "para_889" }, { "text": "“is not eligible to apply for admission” and “[i]n no case may a", "paragraph_id": "para_890" }, { "text": "stowaway be considered an applicant for admission.” 8 U.S.C.", "paragraph_id": "para_891" }, { "text": "§ 1225(a)(2). But such an alien may nevertheless be “otherwise", "paragraph_id": "para_892" }, { "text": "seeking admission,” in which case he must be inspected by an", "paragraph_id": "para_893" }, { "text": "immigration officer pursuant to § 1225(a)(3) and will be determined", "paragraph_id": "para_894" }, { "text": "to be inadmissible. See id. § 1182(a)(6)(D); 8 C.F.R. § 235.1(f)(4).", "paragraph_id": "para_895" }, { "text": "The same goes for alien crewmen. With the passage of the", "paragraph_id": "para_896" }, { "text": "Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996", "paragraph_id": "para_897" }, { "text": "(“IIRIRA”), the Immigration and Naturalization Service recognized", "paragraph_id": "para_898" }, { "text": "that § 1225(a)(3) “now clearly requires the inspection of all alien", "paragraph_id": "para_899" }, { "text": "crewmen seeking admission or readmission to or transit through the", "paragraph_id": "para_900" }, { "text": "United States.” 10 An arriving alien crewman must be inspected", "paragraph_id": "para_901" }, { "text": "9 Moreover, the panel’s interpretation renders the word “otherwise”", "paragraph_id": "para_902" }, { "text": "superfluous. “[T]he same reading would be accomplished if the statute", "paragraph_id": "para_903" }, { "text": "simply read ‘who are applicants for admission or seeking admission.’”", "paragraph_id": "para_904" }, { "text": "Guerrero Orellana, 2026 WL 2352042, at *22 (Dunlap, J., dissenting). “It is our", "paragraph_id": "para_905" }, { "text": "duty ‘to give effect, if possible, to every clause and word of a statute.’”", "paragraph_id": "para_906" }, { "text": "United States v. Menasche, 348 U.S. 528, 538-39 (1955) (quoting Inhabitants of", "paragraph_id": "para_907" }, { "text": "Montclair v. Ramsdell, 107 U.S. 147, 152 (1883)).", "paragraph_id": "para_908" }, { "text": "10 Inspection of Alien Crewmembers; 90-Day Modified Inspection", "paragraph_id": "para_909" }, { "text": "Procedure, 62 Fed. Reg. 43676, 43677 (Aug. 15, 1997).", "paragraph_id": "para_910" }, { "text": "22", "paragraph_id": "para_911" }, { "text": "pursuant to § 1225(a)(3) and must be determined to be “admissible.”", "paragraph_id": "para_912" }, { "text": "8 U.S.C. § 1282(a); see also 8 C.F.R. § 252.1(c) (explaining that an alien", "paragraph_id": "para_913" }, { "text": "crewman must “establish to the satisfaction of the inspecting officer", "paragraph_id": "para_914" }, { "text": "that he or she is not inadmissible under any provision of the law”); id.", "paragraph_id": "para_915" }, { "text": "§ 252.3(b)(2) (describing an alien crewman who “[s]eeks admission", "paragraph_id": "para_916" }, { "text": "for a period of less than 29 days”). If the alien crewman receives a", "paragraph_id": "para_917" }, { "text": "conditional permit to land temporarily in the United States, the", "paragraph_id": "para_918" }, { "text": "immigration officer endorses a form “to show the date and place of", "paragraph_id": "para_919" }, { "text": "admission and the type of conditional landing permit.” Id. § 252.1(e)", "paragraph_id": "para_920" }, { "text": "(emphasis added). But although the alien crewman is seeking", "paragraph_id": "para_921" }, { "text": "admission in the form of such a permit, he is not an applicant for", "paragraph_id": "para_922" }, { "text": "admission because an alien “permitted to land temporarily as an alien", "paragraph_id": "para_923" }, { "text": "crewman shall not be considered to have been admitted.” 8 U.S.C.", "paragraph_id": "para_924" }, { "text": "§ 1101(a)(13)(B). So by applying for the permit, the alien is not an", "paragraph_id": "para_925" }, { "text": "applicant for admission. But such an alien must be inspected because", "paragraph_id": "para_926" }, { "text": "he is otherwise seeking admission.", "paragraph_id": "para_927" }, { "text": "A similar framework applies to a lawful permanent resident", "paragraph_id": "para_928" }, { "text": "under some circumstances. “An alien lawfully admitted for", "paragraph_id": "para_929" }, { "text": "permanent residence in the United States” will generally “not be", "paragraph_id": "para_930" }, { "text": "regarded as seeking an admission into the United States for purposes", "paragraph_id": "para_931" }, { "text": "of the immigration laws.” Id. § 1101(a)(13)(C). But he becomes", "paragraph_id": "para_932" }, { "text": "regarded as seeking admission if, for example, he “has been absent", "paragraph_id": "para_933" }, { "text": "from the United States for a continuous period in excess of 180 days”", "paragraph_id": "para_934" }, { "text": "or “has engaged in illegal activity after having departed the United", "paragraph_id": "para_935" }, { "text": "States.” Id. § 1101(a)(13)(C)(ii)-(iii). Those “lawful permanent", "paragraph_id": "para_936" }, { "text": "residents who fall under any of 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(13)(C)’s", "paragraph_id": "para_937" }, { "text": "scenarios … are not ‘applicants for admission’ but may still ‘seek", "paragraph_id": "para_938" }, { "text": "admission’ in [those] circumstances.” Lopez-Campos, 175 F.4th at 727.", "paragraph_id": "para_939" }, { "text": "The alien who has already been admitted for permanent residence but", "paragraph_id": "para_940" }, { "text": "is treated as seeking admission is not an applicant for admission. But", "paragraph_id": "para_941" }, { "text": "23", "paragraph_id": "para_942" }, { "text": "he must be inspected as an alien “otherwise seeking admission” and", "paragraph_id": "para_943" }, { "text": "must be determined to be admissible before reentering the country.", "paragraph_id": "para_944" }, { "text": "8 U.S.C. § 1225(a)(3).", "paragraph_id": "para_945" }, { "text": "The conclusion of the panel that applicants for admission are", "paragraph_id": "para_946" }, { "text": "not a subset of those aliens seeking admission was based on its own", "paragraph_id": "para_947" }, { "text": "linguistic assumptions rather than the legal framework of the INA.", "paragraph_id": "para_948" }, { "text": "The treatment of stowaways and crewmen in § 1225 itself illustrates", "paragraph_id": "para_949" }, { "text": "the point. Most aliens seeking admission will be applicants for", "paragraph_id": "para_950" }, { "text": "admission, but not every alien seeking admission is such an applicant.", "paragraph_id": "para_951" }, { "text": "That is why the INA refers to aliens “who are applicants for admission", "paragraph_id": "para_952" }, { "text": "or otherwise seeking admission.” Id. Applicants for admission are a", "paragraph_id": "para_953" }, { "text": "subset of aliens seeking admission.", "paragraph_id": "para_954" }, { "text": "2", "paragraph_id": "para_955" }, { "text": "The panel suggested that the government’s reading of the", "paragraph_id": "para_956" }, { "text": "detention provision creates a superfluity problem by understanding", "paragraph_id": "para_957" }, { "text": "the phrases “applicant for admission” and “seeking admission” each", "paragraph_id": "para_958" }, { "text": "to refer to the same category of people. See Barbosa da Cunha, 175 F.4th", "paragraph_id": "para_959" }, { "text": "at 75. As just explained, the two terms are not coextensive because", "paragraph_id": "para_960" }, { "text": "some aliens are seeking admission without being applicants for", "paragraph_id": "para_961" }, { "text": "admission. To the extent that the detention provision applies to an", "paragraph_id": "para_962" }, { "text": "“alien seeking admission” only “in the case of an alien who is an", "paragraph_id": "para_963" }, { "text": "applicant for admission,” however, the combination of the two terms", "paragraph_id": "para_964" }, { "text": "creates some redundancy. Yet “that redundancy does not give this", "paragraph_id": "para_965" }, { "text": "court a ‘license to rewrite another portion of the statute contrary to its", "paragraph_id": "para_966" }, { "text": "text.’” Buenrostro-Mendez, 166 F.4th at 503 (alteration omitted)", "paragraph_id": "para_967" }, { "text": "(quoting Barton v. Barr, 590 U.S. 222, 239 (2020)).", "paragraph_id": "para_968" }, { "text": "In fact, “there is ‘no canon of interpretation that forbids", "paragraph_id": "para_969" }, { "text": "interpreting different words used in different parts of the same statute", "paragraph_id": "para_970" }, { "text": "to mean roughly the same thing.’” Id. (quoting Jennings, 583 U.S. at", "paragraph_id": "para_971" }, { "text": "24", "paragraph_id": "para_972" }, { "text": "303). And the exceptions to the detention provision “illustrate that", "paragraph_id": "para_973" }, { "text": "this particular statute was drafted with redundancy from the start.”", "paragraph_id": "para_974" }, { "text": "Hernandez Alvarez, 175 F.4th at 1296 (Lagoa, J., dissenting). For", "paragraph_id": "para_975" }, { "text": "example, § 1225(b)(2)(B)(iii) provides that the detention provision", "paragraph_id": "para_976" }, { "text": "“shall not apply” to an alien “who is a stowaway.” 8 U.S.C.", "paragraph_id": "para_977" }, { "text": "§ 1225(b)(2)(B)(iii). Earlier in the same section, however, the statute", "paragraph_id": "para_978" }, { "text": "provides that “[i]n no case may a stowaway be considered an", "paragraph_id": "para_979" }, { "text": "applicant for admission.” Id. § 1225(a)(2). Because the detention", "paragraph_id": "para_980" }, { "text": "provision applies only “in the case of an alien who is an applicant for", "paragraph_id": "para_981" }, { "text": "admission,” id. § 1225(b)(2)(A), it could not apply to a stowaway even", "paragraph_id": "para_982" }, { "text": "without the express exception of § 1225(b)(2)(B)(iii). But Congress", "paragraph_id": "para_983" }, { "text": "inserted that express exception anyway. And Congress inserted", "paragraph_id": "para_984" }, { "text": "another express exception for an alien “who is a crewman,” id.", "paragraph_id": "para_985" }, { "text": "§ 1225(b)(2)(B)(i), even though a crewman is not an applicant for", "paragraph_id": "para_986" }, { "text": "admission either, see supra Part I-D-1.", "paragraph_id": "para_987" }, { "text": "These express exceptions create redundancy because the", "paragraph_id": "para_988" }, { "text": "exceptions overlap with categories of aliens already excluded from", "paragraph_id": "para_989" }, { "text": "the category of “applicants for admission.” But “some overlap is", "paragraph_id": "para_990" }, { "text": "common in laws of this kind that set forth qualifications to obtain a", "paragraph_id": "para_991" }, { "text": "government benefit” or indeed to obtain entry to the United States.", "paragraph_id": "para_992" }, { "text": "Loving v. IRS, 742 F.3d 1013, 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (Kavanaugh, J.).", "paragraph_id": "para_993" }, { "text": "Legislators “sometimes employ overlap or redundancy so as to", "paragraph_id": "para_994" }, { "text": "remove any doubt and make doubly sure” who will be entitled to", "paragraph_id": "para_995" }, { "text": "what. Id. The Supreme Court has explained that “redundancies are", "paragraph_id": "para_996" }, { "text": "common in statutory drafting—sometimes in a congressional effort to", "paragraph_id": "para_997" }, { "text": "be doubly sure, sometimes because of congressional inadvertence or", "paragraph_id": "para_998" }, { "text": "lack of foresight, or sometimes simply because of the shortcomings of", "paragraph_id": "para_999" }, { "text": "human communication,” and the Court “has often recognized:", "paragraph_id": "para_1000" }, { "text": "‘Sometimes the better overall reading of the statute contains some", "paragraph_id": "para_1001" }, { "text": "25", "paragraph_id": "para_1002" }, { "text": "redundancy.’” Barton, 590 U.S. at 239 (quoting Rimini St., Inc. v. Oracle", "paragraph_id": "para_1003" }, { "text": "USA, Inc., 586 U.S. 334, 346 (2019)).11", "paragraph_id": "para_1004" }, { "text": "Even so, the panel’s interpretation “creates a far worse", "paragraph_id": "para_1005" }, { "text": "surplusage problem than the one it purports to solve.” Hernandez", "paragraph_id": "para_1006" }, { "text": "Alvarez, 175 F.4th at 1296 (Lagoa, J., dissenting). At the outset of", "paragraph_id": "para_1007" }, { "text": "§ 1225, Congress inserted the deeming provision of § 1225(a)(1) to", "paragraph_id": "para_1008" }, { "text": "provide that an unadmitted illegal alien “shall be deemed for", "paragraph_id": "para_1009" }, { "text": "purposes of this chapter an applicant for admission.” 8 U.S.C.", "paragraph_id": "para_1010" }, { "text": "§ 1225(a)(1). According to the panel’s interpretation, however,", "paragraph_id": "para_1011" }, { "text": "Congress proceeded to insert the phrase “seeking admission”", "paragraph_id": "para_1012" }, { "text": "throughout § 1225 in order to ensure that unadmitted illegal aliens", "paragraph_id": "para_1013" }, { "text": "would be excluded from every operative provision in § 1225 in which", "paragraph_id": "para_1014" }, { "text": "the phrase “applicant for admission” appears.", "paragraph_id": "para_1015" }, { "text": "There are two such provisions in § 1225. First, the statute directs", "paragraph_id": "para_1016" }, { "text": "that “[a]n applicant for admission may be required to state under oath", "paragraph_id": "para_1017" }, { "text": "any information sought by an immigration officer regarding the", "paragraph_id": "para_1018" }, { "text": "purposes and intentions of the applicant in seeking admission to the", "paragraph_id": "para_1019" }, { "text": "United States.” Id. § 1225(a)(5) (emphasis added). According to the", "paragraph_id": "para_1020" }, { "text": "reasoning of the panel, this provision would not apply to a", "paragraph_id": "para_1021" }, { "text": "constructive applicant for admission. Because the unadmitted illegal", "paragraph_id": "para_1022" }, { "text": "11 See also Cirrus Rojas, 183 F.4th at 935 (Sykes, J., dissenting) (“[W]hen an", "paragraph_id": "para_1023" }, { "text": "old and complex statute like the INA has been repeatedly amended and is", "paragraph_id": "para_1024" }, { "text": "riddled with legal fictions, terms of art, and redundancies, incongruities are", "paragraph_id": "para_1025" }, { "text": "sure to exist. As Judge Learned Hand said a century ago, our immigration", "paragraph_id": "para_1026" }, { "text": "laws are ‘so confused, contradictory, minute, and manifold’ that they", "paragraph_id": "para_1027" }, { "text": "‘inevitably produce such caprices.’”) (alteration omitted) (quoting United", "paragraph_id": "para_1028" }, { "text": "States ex rel. Georgas v. Day, 43 F.2d 917, 919 (2d Cir. 1930)).", "paragraph_id": "para_1029" }, { "text": "26", "paragraph_id": "para_1030" }, { "text": "alien is not actually seeking admission, he would not need to provide", "paragraph_id": "para_1031" }, { "text": "information about doing so under oath.12", "paragraph_id": "para_1032" }, { "text": "Second, the statute directs that “[i]n the case of an alien who is", "paragraph_id": "para_1033" }, { "text": "an applicant for admission, if the examining immigration officer", "paragraph_id": "para_1034" }, { "text": "determines that an alien seeking admission is not clearly and beyond a", "paragraph_id": "para_1035" }, { "text": "doubt entitled to be admitted, the alien shall be detained for a", "paragraph_id": "para_1036" }, { "text": "[removal] proceeding.” 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) (emphasis added).", "paragraph_id": "para_1037" }, { "text": "According to the panel, this provision also does not apply because the", "paragraph_id": "para_1038" }, { "text": "unadmitted illegal alien is not seeking admission. But if neither of these", "paragraph_id": "para_1039" }, { "text": "provisions applies, then no provision of § 1225 applies to an", "paragraph_id": "para_1040" }, { "text": "unadmitted illegal alien who is a constructive applicant for", "paragraph_id": "para_1041" }, { "text": "admission. It would make no sense for Congress to have opened that", "paragraph_id": "para_1042" }, { "text": "section by announcing that such aliens must be treated as applicants", "paragraph_id": "para_1043" }, { "text": "for admission and then to write operative provisions that never apply", "paragraph_id": "para_1044" }, { "text": "to them.", "paragraph_id": "para_1045" }, { "text": "It is true that the term applicant for admission—without an", "paragraph_id": "para_1046" }, { "text": "accompanying seeking admission—“appears once in § 1229a, in", "paragraph_id": "para_1047" }, { "text": "§ 1229a(c)(2), to define the burden applicants for admission bear in", "paragraph_id": "para_1048" }, { "text": "removal proceedings.” Buenrostro-Mendez, 166 F.4th at 504 n.10. “But", "paragraph_id": "para_1049" }, { "text": "if this is the only reason ‘applicant for admission’ extends beyond", "paragraph_id": "para_1050" }, { "text": "‘arriving aliens,’ then why would Congress not merely specify in", "paragraph_id": "para_1051" }, { "text": "[§ 1229a(c)(2)] that the provision applies to both arriving aliens and", "paragraph_id": "para_1052" }, { "text": "those already present?” Id. It is “a bizarre construction” under which", "paragraph_id": "para_1053" }, { "text": "“Congress established a broad definition [of ‘applicant for", "paragraph_id": "para_1054" }, { "text": "12 The provision also undermines the panel’s interpretation because in", "paragraph_id": "para_1055" }, { "text": "§ 1225(a)(5) “Congress used the phrase ‘seeking admission’ simply to", "paragraph_id": "para_1056" }, { "text": "describe the state of an applicant.” Buele Morocho, 2026 WL 2546223, at *18", "paragraph_id": "para_1057" }, { "text": "(Mascott, J., dissenting). This provision clearly does not describe “[a]liens", "paragraph_id": "para_1058" }, { "text": "‘seeking admission’” as a “subset standing apart from a broader applicant", "paragraph_id": "para_1059" }, { "text": "class.” Id.", "paragraph_id": "para_1060" }, { "text": "27", "paragraph_id": "para_1061" }, { "text": "admission’] in § 1225 but, despite repeatedly using the term in § 1225,", "paragraph_id": "para_1062" }, { "text": "used the full breadth of the definition only in a corollary provision in", "paragraph_id": "para_1063" }, { "text": "a completely independent section of the code.” Id. We must reject", "paragraph_id": "para_1064" }, { "text": "such a bizarre construction in favor of a sensible one “because it is our", "paragraph_id": "para_1065" }, { "text": "role to make sense rather than nonsense out of the corpus juris.” W. Va.", "paragraph_id": "para_1066" }, { "text": "Univ. Hosps., Inc. v. Casey, 499 U.S. 83, 101 (1991) (Scalia, J.).", "paragraph_id": "para_1067" }, { "text": "The more sensible view is that the detention provision—just as", "paragraph_id": "para_1068" }, { "text": "it uses the redundant phrase “not clearly and beyond a doubt”—", "paragraph_id": "para_1069" }, { "text": "“describes the same alien twice: once using the operative term in the", "paragraph_id": "para_1070" }, { "text": "introductory clause and once using ordinary English in the operative", "paragraph_id": "para_1071" }, { "text": "clause. That is a doublet, not surplusage.” Hernandez Alvarez, 175 F.4th", "paragraph_id": "para_1072" }, { "text": "at 1296 (Lagoa, J., dissenting). A doublet reflects “two ways of saying", "paragraph_id": "para_1073" }, { "text": "the same thing that reinforce its meaning,” and “the presumption", "paragraph_id": "para_1074" }, { "text": "against surplusage does not apply to doublets.” Doe v. Boland, 698", "paragraph_id": "para_1075" }, { "text": "F.3d 877, 881 (6th Cir. 2012) (Sutton, J.). “Doublet redundancy in a", "paragraph_id": "para_1076" }, { "text": "single sentence is a minor interpretive cost,” while “[n]ullifying the", "paragraph_id": "para_1077" }, { "text": "reach of a deeming provision across an entire statutory section is not.”", "paragraph_id": "para_1078" }, { "text": "Hernandez Alvarez, 175 F.4th at 1297 (Lagoa, J., dissenting). That", "paragraph_id": "para_1079" }, { "text": "explanation is preferable to the interpretation of the panel under", "paragraph_id": "para_1080" }, { "text": "which the deeming provision serves no meaningful purpose and the", "paragraph_id": "para_1081" }, { "text": "reference to an “applicant for admission” in the detention provision", "paragraph_id": "para_1082" }, { "text": "“ultimately is surplusage.” Buele Morocho, 2026 WL 2546223, at *17", "paragraph_id": "para_1083" }, { "text": "(Mascott, J., dissenting).", "paragraph_id": "para_1084" }, { "text": "3", "paragraph_id": "para_1085" }, { "text": "The panel asserted that “the Supreme Court has long", "paragraph_id": "para_1086" }, { "text": "understood IIRIRA exactly how Petitioner does.” Barbosa da Cunha,", "paragraph_id": "para_1087" }, { "text": "175 F.4th at 84 (citing Jennings, 583 U.S. at 287). That would be big", "paragraph_id": "para_1088" }, { "text": "news if it were true. After all, “vertical stare decisis is absolute” and", "paragraph_id": "para_1089" }, { "text": "would preclude alternative views from the circuit courts. Ramos v.", "paragraph_id": "para_1090" }, { "text": "28", "paragraph_id": "para_1091" }, { "text": "Louisiana, 590 U.S. 83, 124 n.5 (2020) (Kavanaugh, J., concurring in", "paragraph_id": "para_1092" }, { "text": "part). But it is not true. The Supreme Court has not addressed the", "paragraph_id": "para_1093" }, { "text": "question in this case, which is why there is a circuit split.", "paragraph_id": "para_1094" }, { "text": "In Jennings, the Supreme Court observed that “at the Nation’s", "paragraph_id": "para_1095" }, { "text": "borders and ports of entry,” the government “must determine", "paragraph_id": "para_1096" }, { "text": "whether an alien seeking to enter the country is admissible.” Jennings,", "paragraph_id": "para_1097" }, { "text": "583 U.S. at 287. The Court then described the statutory scheme. It", "paragraph_id": "para_1098" }, { "text": "noted that “an alien who ‘arrives in the United States,’ or ‘is present’", "paragraph_id": "para_1099" }, { "text": "in this country but ‘has not been admitted,’ is treated as ‘an applicant", "paragraph_id": "para_1100" }, { "text": "for admission,’” id. (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1225(a)(1)), and that", "paragraph_id": "para_1101" }, { "text": "“[a]pplicants for admission must ‘be inspected by immigration", "paragraph_id": "para_1102" }, { "text": "officers’ to ensure that they may be admitted into the country", "paragraph_id": "para_1103" }, { "text": "consistent with U.S. immigration law,” id. (quoting 8 U.S.C.", "paragraph_id": "para_1104" }, { "text": "§ 1225(a)(3)). Later on, the Court wrote that “immigration law", "paragraph_id": "para_1105" }, { "text": "authorizes the Government to detain certain aliens seeking admission", "paragraph_id": "para_1106" }, { "text": "into the country under §§ 1225(b)(1) and (b)(2)” and that “[i]t also", "paragraph_id": "para_1107" }, { "text": "authorizes the Government to detain certain aliens already in the", "paragraph_id": "para_1108" }, { "text": "country pending the outcome of removal proceedings under", "paragraph_id": "para_1109" }, { "text": "§§ 1226(a) and (c).” Id. at 289. Based on this language, the panel", "paragraph_id": "para_1110" }, { "text": "concluded that the Supreme Court has already held that § 1225", "paragraph_id": "para_1111" }, { "text": "governs the detention of aliens at the border and § 1226 governs the", "paragraph_id": "para_1112" }, { "text": "detention of aliens already inside the country.", "paragraph_id": "para_1113" }, { "text": "The Supreme Court has “cautioned that ‘general language in", "paragraph_id": "para_1114" }, { "text": "judicial opinions should be read as referring in context to", "paragraph_id": "para_1115" }, { "text": "circumstances similar to the circumstances then before the Court and", "paragraph_id": "para_1116" }, { "text": "not referring to quite different circumstances that the Court was not", "paragraph_id": "para_1117" }, { "text": "then considering.’” Olivier v. City of Brandon, 607 U.S. 552, 565 (2026)", "paragraph_id": "para_1118" }, { "text": "(quoting Turkiye Halk Bankasi A.S. v. United States, 598 U.S. 264, 278", "paragraph_id": "para_1119" }, { "text": "(2023)). And in Jennings the Supreme Court was not considering the", "paragraph_id": "para_1120" }, { "text": "application of § 1225 to constructive applicants for admission.", "paragraph_id": "para_1121" }, { "text": "29", "paragraph_id": "para_1122" }, { "text": "Even so, nothing in Jennings supports the panel’s interpretation.", "paragraph_id": "para_1123" }, { "text": "The Supreme Court said that the government may “detain certain", "paragraph_id": "para_1124" }, { "text": "aliens seeking admission into the country under §§ 1225(b)(1) and", "paragraph_id": "para_1125" }, { "text": "(b)(2)” and may “detain certain aliens already in the country pending", "paragraph_id": "para_1126" }, { "text": "the outcome of removal proceedings under §§ 1226(a) and (c).”", "paragraph_id": "para_1127" }, { "text": "Jennings, 583 U.S. at 289. That description is entirely consistent with", "paragraph_id": "para_1128" }, { "text": "the view that the category of “aliens seeking admission” includes not", "paragraph_id": "para_1129" }, { "text": "only arriving aliens at the border but also those unadmitted aliens", "paragraph_id": "para_1130" }, { "text": "who are constructively treated as applicants for admission—in the", "paragraph_id": "para_1131" }, { "text": "same way as arriving aliens—because they have not been admitted.", "paragraph_id": "para_1132" }, { "text": "Those applicants for admission are also “aliens seeking admission.”", "paragraph_id": "para_1133" }, { "text": "Only the panel’s question-begging assumption that an applicant for", "paragraph_id": "para_1134" }, { "text": "admission is not seeking admission could lead to the conclusion that", "paragraph_id": "para_1135" }, { "text": "Jennings endorses its interpretation.", "paragraph_id": "para_1136" }, { "text": "In fact, Jennings undermines the panel’s argument. The", "paragraph_id": "para_1137" }, { "text": "Supreme Court said that the detention provision of § 1225(b)(2)", "paragraph_id": "para_1138" }, { "text": "“serves as a catchall provision that applies to all applicants for", "paragraph_id": "para_1139" }, { "text": "admission not covered by § 1225(b)(1).” Id. at 287 (emphasis added).", "paragraph_id": "para_1140" }, { "text": "The panel agrees that Barbosa da Cunha is (1) an applicant for", "paragraph_id": "para_1141" }, { "text": "admission and (2) not covered by § 1225(b)(1), which applies to", "paragraph_id": "para_1142" }, { "text": "“aliens arriving in the United States,” 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1), and to", "paragraph_id": "para_1143" }, { "text": "unadmitted illegal aliens who have been continuously present for less", "paragraph_id": "para_1144" }, { "text": "than two years, see id. § 1225(b)(1)(A)(iii)(II). The Jennings opinion", "paragraph_id": "para_1145" }, { "text": "therefore anticipates that an applicant for admission such as Barbosa", "paragraph_id": "para_1146" }, { "text": "da Cunha must fall under the “catchall provision” of § 1225(b)(2)", "paragraph_id": "para_1147" }, { "text": "because he is not covered by § 1225(b)(1). The Supreme Court in", "paragraph_id": "para_1148" }, { "text": "Jennings explained that “applicants for admission fall into one of two", "paragraph_id": "para_1149" }, { "text": "30", "paragraph_id": "para_1150" }, { "text": "categories, those covered by § 1225(b)(1) and those covered by", "paragraph_id": "para_1151" }, { "text": "§ 1225(b)(2).” Jennings, 583 U.S. at 287.13", "paragraph_id": "para_1152" }, { "text": "The panel assumed that the distinction was that § 1225 applies", "paragraph_id": "para_1153" }, { "text": "to aliens at the border and § 1226 applies to aliens already inside the", "paragraph_id": "para_1154" }, { "text": "country. But the INA relies instead on the distinction between", "paragraph_id": "para_1155" }, { "text": "unadmitted aliens—whether or not inside the country—and admitted", "paragraph_id": "para_1156" }, { "text": "aliens. We know that § 1226(a) and § 1226(c) do not apply to all aliens", "paragraph_id": "para_1157" }, { "text": "who are already in the country. An alien might be paroled into the", "paragraph_id": "para_1158" }, { "text": "country, for example, but “parole of such alien shall not be regarded", "paragraph_id": "para_1159" }, { "text": "as an admission.” 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5)(A). The paroled alien,", "paragraph_id": "para_1160" }, { "text": "although inside the country, remains an applicant for admission and", "paragraph_id": "para_1161" }, { "text": "may later be detained pursuant to § 1225. The Court recognized as", "paragraph_id": "para_1162" }, { "text": "much in Jennings. See Jennings, 583 U.S. at 288 (explaining that “when", "paragraph_id": "para_1163" }, { "text": "the purpose of the parole has been served, ‘the alien shall forthwith", "paragraph_id": "para_1164" }, { "text": "return or be returned to the custody from which he was paroled and", "paragraph_id": "para_1165" }, { "text": "thereafter his case shall continue to be dealt with in the same manner", "paragraph_id": "para_1166" }, { "text": "as that of any other applicant for admission to the United States’”)", "paragraph_id": "para_1167" }, { "text": "(quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5)(A)). Rather than endorsing the", "paragraph_id": "para_1168" }, { "text": "interpretation of the panel, Jennings relied on the key distinction", "paragraph_id": "para_1169" }, { "text": "between unadmitted and admitted aliens.14", "paragraph_id": "para_1170" }, { "text": "13 The Jennings approach under which all applicants for admission are", "paragraph_id": "para_1171" }, { "text": "covered by § 1225 makes much more sense than the panel’s approach under", "paragraph_id": "para_1172" }, { "text": "which (1) only two types of applicants for admission—arriving aliens", "paragraph_id": "para_1173" }, { "text": "and unadmitted illegal aliens who have been present for less than two", "paragraph_id": "para_1174" }, { "text": "years—are covered by § 1225, and (2) a third type of applicants for", "paragraph_id": "para_1175" }, { "text": "admission—unadmitted illegal aliens who have been present for two years", "paragraph_id": "para_1176" }, { "text": "or more—is not covered by § 1225 at all but falls under § 1226.", "paragraph_id": "para_1177" }, { "text": "14 The Immigration and Naturalization Service estimated that “[a]bout 2.1", "paragraph_id": "para_1178" }, { "text": "million, or 41 percent, of the total undocumented population in 1996 are", "paragraph_id": "para_1179" }, { "text": "nonimmigrant overstays. That is, they entered legally on a temporary basis", "paragraph_id": "para_1180" }, { "text": "and failed to depart.” Immigration and Naturalization Service, U.S.", "paragraph_id": "para_1181" }, { "text": "31", "paragraph_id": "para_1182" }, { "text": "4", "paragraph_id": "para_1183" }, { "text": "The panel claimed that “the Executive Branch has for nearly", "paragraph_id": "para_1184" }, { "text": "three decades acted inconsistently with the newfound interpretation”", "paragraph_id": "para_1185" }, { "text": "that it advanced in this case. Barbosa da Cunha, 175 F.4th at 91. I agree", "paragraph_id": "para_1186" }, { "text": "that while we must “exercise independent judgment in determining", "paragraph_id": "para_1187" }, { "text": "the meaning of statutory provisions,” in exercising that judgment", "paragraph_id": "para_1188" }, { "text": "“interpretations issued contemporaneously with the statute at issue,", "paragraph_id": "para_1189" }, { "text": "and which have remained consistent over time, may be especially", "paragraph_id": "para_1190" }, { "text": "useful in determining the statute’s meaning.” Loper Bright, 603 U.S. at", "paragraph_id": "para_1191" }, { "text": "394.15", "paragraph_id": "para_1192" }, { "text": "At the same time, “a ‘long-established practice’ does not justify", "paragraph_id": "para_1193" }, { "text": "a rule that denies statutory text its fairest reading.” Armstrong v.", "paragraph_id": "para_1194" }, { "text": "Exceptional Child Ctr., Inc., 575 U.S. 320, 329 (2015). The panel", "paragraph_id": "para_1195" }, { "text": "acknowledged that principle by stating that “[i]f judges could add to,", "paragraph_id": "para_1196" }, { "text": "remodel, update, or detract from old statutory terms inspired only by", "paragraph_id": "para_1197" }, { "text": "extratextual sources and our own imaginations, we would risk", "paragraph_id": "para_1198" }, { "text": "amending statutes outside the legislative process reserved for the", "paragraph_id": "para_1199" }, { "text": "people’s representatives.” Barbosa da Cunha, 175 F.4th at 96 (quoting", "paragraph_id": "para_1200" }, { "text": "Bostock v. Clayton County, 590 U.S. 644, 654-55 (2020)). In Bostock, the", "paragraph_id": "para_1201" }, { "text": "Department of Justice, Illegal Alien Resident Population (last modified", "paragraph_id": "para_1202" }, { "text": "Aug. 11, 1999), https://perma.cc/QV9N-FP73. So the population of admitted", "paragraph_id": "para_1203" }, { "text": "illegal aliens was significant when Congress revised these statutes—which", "paragraph_id": "para_1204" }, { "text": "meant that the detention authority of § 1226 would apply to a large", "paragraph_id": "para_1205" }, { "text": "population not covered by § 1225. See Chen v. Almodovar, No. 25-CV-9670,", "paragraph_id": "para_1206" }, { "text": "2026 WL 100761, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 14, 2026) (identifying the categories of", "paragraph_id": "para_1207" }, { "text": "aliens subject to § 1225(b)(1), § 1225(b)(2), § 1226(a), and § 1226(c)).", "paragraph_id": "para_1208" }, { "text": "15 See also Aditya Bamzai, The Origins of Judicial Deference to Executive", "paragraph_id": "para_1209" }, { "text": "Interpretation, 126 Yale L.J. 908, 916 (2017) (“Under the traditional", "paragraph_id": "para_1210" }, { "text": "interpretive approach, American courts ‘respected’ longstanding and", "paragraph_id": "para_1211" }, { "text": "contemporaneous executive interpretations of law as part of a practice of", "paragraph_id": "para_1212" }, { "text": "deferring to longstanding and contemporaneous interpretation generally.”).", "paragraph_id": "para_1213" }, { "text": "32", "paragraph_id": "para_1214" }, { "text": "Supreme Court “did not hesitate to reject what had been the decades-", "paragraph_id": "para_1215" }, { "text": "old agency and judicial view of Title VII when it held that the text", "paragraph_id": "para_1216" }, { "text": "unambiguously covered sexual-orientation discrimination.” Lopez-", "paragraph_id": "para_1217" }, { "text": "Campos, 175 F.4th at 758 (Murphy, J., dissenting). So a longstanding", "paragraph_id": "para_1218" }, { "text": "executive branch interpretation is not always decisive.", "paragraph_id": "para_1219" }, { "text": "In this case, however, the evidence on which the panel relied", "paragraph_id": "para_1220" }, { "text": "does not establish that the executive branch previously maintained a", "paragraph_id": "para_1221" }, { "text": "longstanding interpretation contrary to the view that an unadmitted", "paragraph_id": "para_1222" }, { "text": "illegal alien is subject to detention under § 1225(b)(2). The panel", "paragraph_id": "para_1223" }, { "text": "opinion quoted a sentence from the agency responses to comments", "paragraph_id": "para_1224" }, { "text": "when the Immigration and Naturalization Service promulgated an", "paragraph_id": "para_1225" }, { "text": "interim rule in 1997. In that sentence, the INS wrote: “Despite being", "paragraph_id": "para_1226" }, { "text": "applicants for admission, aliens who are present without having been", "paragraph_id": "para_1227" }, { "text": "admitted or paroled (formerly referred to as aliens who entered", "paragraph_id": "para_1228" }, { "text": "without inspection) will be eligible for bond and bond", "paragraph_id": "para_1229" }, { "text": "redetermination.”16 Because the INS wrote that an unadmitted illegal", "paragraph_id": "para_1230" }, { "text": "alien will be eligible for bond, the panel concluded that the INS must", "paragraph_id": "para_1231" }, { "text": "have understood unadmitted illegal aliens to be detained pursuant to", "paragraph_id": "para_1232" }, { "text": "the discretionary detention provision of § 1226(a) rather than the", "paragraph_id": "para_1233" }, { "text": "mandatory detention provision of § 1225(b)(2).", "paragraph_id": "para_1234" }, { "text": "But that conclusion contradicts the actual rule that the INS", "paragraph_id": "para_1235" }, { "text": "adopted. Under § 1225(b)(1)(A)(iii), the Attorney General has the", "paragraph_id": "para_1236" }, { "text": "discretion to subject to the expedited removal procedures of", "paragraph_id": "para_1237" }, { "text": "§ 1225(b)(1) an alien “who has not been admitted or paroled into the", "paragraph_id": "para_1238" }, { "text": "United States”—that is, an unadmitted illegal alien—who has not", "paragraph_id": "para_1239" }, { "text": "shown that he has been “physically present in the United States", "paragraph_id": "para_1240" }, { "text": "16 Inspection and Expedited Removal of Aliens; Detention and Removal of", "paragraph_id": "para_1241" }, { "text": "Aliens; Conduct of Removal Proceedings; Asylum Procedures, 62 Fed. Reg.", "paragraph_id": "para_1242" }, { "text": "10312, 10323 (Mar. 6, 1997).", "paragraph_id": "para_1243" }, { "text": "33", "paragraph_id": "para_1244" }, { "text": "continuously for the 2-year period” prior to a determination of", "paragraph_id": "para_1245" }, { "text": "inadmissibility. 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1)(A)(iii)(II). The Attorney General", "paragraph_id": "para_1246" }, { "text": "exercised that discretion in the rule on which the panel relied. The", "paragraph_id": "para_1247" }, { "text": "rule stated that aliens who “have entered the United States without", "paragraph_id": "para_1248" }, { "text": "having been admitted or paroled”—that is, unadmitted illegal", "paragraph_id": "para_1249" }, { "text": "aliens—“who have not established to the satisfaction of the", "paragraph_id": "para_1250" }, { "text": "immigration officer that they have been physically present in the", "paragraph_id": "para_1251" }, { "text": "United States continuously for the 2-year period immediately prior to", "paragraph_id": "para_1252" }, { "text": "the date of determination of inadmissibility” will be subject to “the", "paragraph_id": "para_1253" }, { "text": "provisions of section 235(b)(1) of the Act.” 62 Fed. Reg. at 10355.", "paragraph_id": "para_1254" }, { "text": "Section 235(b)(1) of the INA is the expedited removal provision", "paragraph_id": "para_1255" }, { "text": "codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1). Then the rule continued:", "paragraph_id": "para_1256" }, { "text": "An alien who was not inspected and admitted or paroled", "paragraph_id": "para_1257" }, { "text": "into the United States but who establishes that he or she", "paragraph_id": "para_1258" }, { "text": "has been continuously physically present in the United", "paragraph_id": "para_1259" }, { "text": "States for the 2-year period immediately prior to the date", "paragraph_id": "para_1260" }, { "text": "of determination of inadmissibility shall be detained in", "paragraph_id": "para_1261" }, { "text": "accordance with section 235(b)(2) of the Act for a proceeding", "paragraph_id": "para_1262" }, { "text": "under section 240 of the Act.", "paragraph_id": "para_1263" }, { "text": "Id. (emphasis added). Section 235(b)(2) of the INA is the detention", "paragraph_id": "para_1264" }, { "text": "provision of § 1225(b)(2). So this is a contemporaneous interpretation", "paragraph_id": "para_1265" }, { "text": "of the government—issued when the detention provision was", "paragraph_id": "para_1266" }, { "text": "adopted—stating that an unadmitted illegal alien is subject either to", "paragraph_id": "para_1267" }, { "text": "expedited removal under § 1225(b)(1) or to the detention provision of", "paragraph_id": "para_1268" }, { "text": "§ 1225(b)(2). See Jennings, 583 U.S. at 287 (“[A]pplicants for admission", "paragraph_id": "para_1269" }, { "text": "fall into one of two categories, those covered by § 1225(b)(1) and those", "paragraph_id": "para_1270" }, { "text": "covered by § 1225(b)(2).”). And this remains the interpretation of the", "paragraph_id": "para_1271" }, { "text": "executive branch. The current regulation continues to provide that an", "paragraph_id": "para_1272" }, { "text": "unadmitted illegal alien is either subject to expedited removal or", "paragraph_id": "para_1273" }, { "text": "“shall be detained” pending removal proceedings “in accordance", "paragraph_id": "para_1274" }, { "text": "with” § 1225(b)(2). 8 C.F.R. § 235.3(b)(1)(ii). Thus, the “regulation", "paragraph_id": "para_1275" }, { "text": "34", "paragraph_id": "para_1276" }, { "text": "enacted in 1997 that is still on the books today provides the same", "paragraph_id": "para_1277" }, { "text": "interpretation of § 1225(b)(2)(A) for which the government", "paragraph_id": "para_1278" }, { "text": "advocates,” providing “further evidence of the executive branch’s", "paragraph_id": "para_1279" }, { "text": "original understanding of IIRIRA.” Rodriguez Vazquez, 183 F.4th at", "paragraph_id": "para_1280" }, { "text": "1200 (Bea, J., dissenting). The understanding the executive branch", "paragraph_id": "para_1281" }, { "text": "expressed in 1996 is consistent with its position in 2026.", "paragraph_id": "para_1282" }, { "text": "The panel assumed that because an unadmitted illegal alien", "paragraph_id": "para_1283" }, { "text": "received a bond hearing, the government must have understood the", "paragraph_id": "para_1284" }, { "text": "alien to be detained pursuant to § 1226(a) rather than § 1225(b)(2). But", "paragraph_id": "para_1285" }, { "text": "the contemporaneous interpretation on which the panel relied said", "paragraph_id": "para_1286" }, { "text": "the opposite: An unadmitted illegal alien is subject either to expedited", "paragraph_id": "para_1287" }, { "text": "removal under § 1225(b)(1) or to detention pending removal", "paragraph_id": "para_1288" }, { "text": "proceedings under the detention provision of § 1225(b)(2).", "paragraph_id": "para_1289" }, { "text": "What to make of the sentence in the commentary", "paragraph_id": "para_1290" }, { "text": "accompanying the 1997 interim rule stating that unadmitted illegal", "paragraph_id": "para_1291" }, { "text": "aliens “will be eligible for bond and bond redetermination”? Perhaps", "paragraph_id": "para_1292" }, { "text": "the government was exercising a type of enforcement discretion", "paragraph_id": "para_1293" }, { "text": "because it lacked the resources to mandatorily detain every alien", "paragraph_id": "para_1294" }, { "text": "subject to § 1225(b)(2). Both the executive branch and the Supreme", "paragraph_id": "para_1295" }, { "text": "Court have recognized that “[d]ue to consistent and significant", "paragraph_id": "para_1296" }, { "text": "funding shortfalls, … DHS has never had ‘sufficient detention", "paragraph_id": "para_1297" }, { "text": "capacity to maintain in custody every single person described in", "paragraph_id": "para_1298" }, { "text": "section 1225.’” 17 The government’s “enforcement discretion over", "paragraph_id": "para_1299" }, { "text": "arrests and prosecutions extends to the immigration context,” United", "paragraph_id": "para_1300" }, { "text": "States v. Texas, 599 U.S. 670, 679 (2023), and the Supreme Court has", "paragraph_id": "para_1301" }, { "text": "approved the exercise of such enforcement discretion even when a", "paragraph_id": "para_1302" }, { "text": "17 Biden v. Texas, 597 U.S. 785, 792 (2022) (quoting DHS, Explanation of the", "paragraph_id": "para_1303" }, { "text": "Decision to Terminate the Migrant Protection Protocols 28 (Oct. 29, 2021),", "paragraph_id": "para_1304" }, { "text": "https://perma.cc/YY2P-EM88).", "paragraph_id": "para_1305" }, { "text": "35", "paragraph_id": "para_1306" }, { "text": "statute uses mandatory language such as “shall,” id. at 682. The", "paragraph_id": "para_1307" }, { "text": "Supreme Court has expressly reserved judgment on “whether the", "paragraph_id": "para_1308" }, { "text": "detention requirement in section 1225(b)(2)(A) is subject to principles", "paragraph_id": "para_1309" }, { "text": "of law enforcement discretion,” and the government has previously", "paragraph_id": "para_1310" }, { "text": "argued that it is. Biden, 597 U.S. at 803 n.5.", "paragraph_id": "para_1311" }, { "text": "That question is not before us in this case, which concerns", "paragraph_id": "para_1312" }, { "text": "whether an unadmitted illegal alien is subject to the detention", "paragraph_id": "para_1313" }, { "text": "provision of § 1225(b)(2) in the first place. The point here is that the", "paragraph_id": "para_1314" }, { "text": "government’s previous exercise of enforcement discretion is not", "paragraph_id": "para_1315" }, { "text": "probative of the meaning of § 1225(b)(2). The panel believed that by", "paragraph_id": "para_1316" }, { "text": "stating that an unadmitted illegal alien may receive a bond hearing,", "paragraph_id": "para_1317" }, { "text": "the government had interpreted § 1225(b)(2) not to apply to such an", "paragraph_id": "para_1318" }, { "text": "alien. But the panel failed to read the actual rule on which it relied,", "paragraph_id": "para_1319" }, { "text": "which expressly stated that an unadmitted illegal alien—because he", "paragraph_id": "para_1320" }, { "text": "is an applicant for admission—is subject to detention under", "paragraph_id": "para_1321" }, { "text": "§ 1225(b)(2).", "paragraph_id": "para_1322" }, { "text": "5", "paragraph_id": "para_1323" }, { "text": "To justify its counterintuitive reading of the detention", "paragraph_id": "para_1324" }, { "text": "provision, the panel invoked the canon of constitutional avoidance.", "paragraph_id": "para_1325" }, { "text": "Pursuant to the canon, “[w]hen ‘a serious doubt’ is raised about the", "paragraph_id": "para_1326" }, { "text": "constitutionality of an Act of Congress, ‘it is a cardinal principle that", "paragraph_id": "para_1327" }, { "text": "this Court will first ascertain whether a construction of the statute is", "paragraph_id": "para_1328" }, { "text": "fairly possible by which the question may be avoided.’” Jennings, 583", "paragraph_id": "para_1329" }, { "text": "U.S. at 296 (quoting Crowell v. Benson, 285 U.S. 22, 62 (1932)). The panel", "paragraph_id": "para_1330" }, { "text": "explained that “even if there were ambiguity in the statutory text, we", "paragraph_id": "para_1331" }, { "text": "would reject the government’s interpretation because of the grave", "paragraph_id": "para_1332" }, { "text": "constitutional concerns it raises.” Barbosa da Cunha, 175 F.4th at 93.", "paragraph_id": "para_1333" }, { "text": "The panel said that the government’s interpretation raises", "paragraph_id": "para_1334" }, { "text": "“constitutional alarms” for three reasons. Id. at 94. First, “[w]hile", "paragraph_id": "para_1335" }, { "text": "36", "paragraph_id": "para_1336" }, { "text": "noncitizens can be detained temporarily to ‘give immigration officials", "paragraph_id": "para_1337" }, { "text": "time to determine an alien’s status without running the risk of the", "paragraph_id": "para_1338" }, { "text": "alien’s either absconding or engaging in criminal activity,’ that is not", "paragraph_id": "para_1339" }, { "text": "what is going on here, where detention is mandatory regardless of", "paragraph_id": "para_1340" }, { "text": "these risks.” Id. (alteration and citation omitted) (quoting Jennings, 583", "paragraph_id": "para_1341" }, { "text": "U.S. at 286). The panel saw “no basis for subjecting all noncitizens in", "paragraph_id": "para_1342" }, { "text": "Petitioner’s shoes to categorical detention without bond.” Id. Second,", "paragraph_id": "para_1343" }, { "text": "“[t]he government’s interpretation would also likely subject", "paragraph_id": "para_1344" }, { "text": "Petitioner to unconstitutionally prolonged detention” because his", "paragraph_id": "para_1345" }, { "text": "removal proceedings could take a long time. Id. Third, “[t]hese", "paragraph_id": "para_1346" }, { "text": "concerns are compounded by the fact that noncitizens have no right", "paragraph_id": "para_1347" }, { "text": "to counsel and are therefore often unrepresented in removal", "paragraph_id": "para_1348" }, { "text": "proceedings. Unlike criminals detained for punitive purposes,", "paragraph_id": "para_1349" }, { "text": "noncitizens like Petitioner thus lack the ability to reliably challenge", "paragraph_id": "para_1350" }, { "text": "their detention or the conditions in which they are being held.” Id.", "paragraph_id": "para_1351" }, { "text": "(citation omitted).", "paragraph_id": "para_1352" }, { "text": "None of these points reflects plausible constitutional violations.", "paragraph_id": "para_1353" }, { "text": "I will address the panel’s concerns in reverse order. First, “[i]t is well", "paragraph_id": "para_1354" }, { "text": "known that immigrants in this country ‘have no specific right to", "paragraph_id": "para_1355" }, { "text": "counsel’ in immigration proceedings, even for life-altering", "paragraph_id": "para_1356" }, { "text": "proceedings such as detention and removal.” Watson v. United States,", "paragraph_id": "para_1357" }, { "text": "865 F.3d 123, 136 (2d Cir. 2017) (Katzman, C.J., concurring in part and", "paragraph_id": "para_1358" }, { "text": "dissenting in part) (quoting Aris v. Mukasey, 517 F.3d 595, 600 (2d Cir.", "paragraph_id": "para_1359" }, { "text": "2008)). The panel did not and could not say otherwise. But the panel", "paragraph_id": "para_1360" }, { "text": "invented a quasi-right to counsel by suggesting that the lack of", "paragraph_id": "para_1361" }, { "text": "counsel could “compound[]” other constitutional concerns. Even", "paragraph_id": "para_1362" }, { "text": "taken on its own terms, the panel opinion said that the lack of a right", "paragraph_id": "para_1363" }, { "text": "to counsel was relevant only insofar as there are other actual", "paragraph_id": "para_1364" }, { "text": "constitutional concerns with the government’s interpretation. But", "paragraph_id": "para_1365" }, { "text": "there are no actual concerns.", "paragraph_id": "para_1366" }, { "text": "37", "paragraph_id": "para_1367" }, { "text": "Second, to support its view that the government’s", "paragraph_id": "para_1368" }, { "text": "interpretation would subject Barbosa da Cunha to unconstitutionally", "paragraph_id": "para_1369" }, { "text": "prolonged detention, the panel invoked Demore v. Kim. In Demore, the", "paragraph_id": "para_1370" }, { "text": "Supreme Court said that detention pursuant to § 1226(c)—another", "paragraph_id": "para_1371" }, { "text": "mandatory detention provision of the INA—“lasts roughly a month", "paragraph_id": "para_1372" }, { "text": "and a half in the vast majority of cases in which [§ 1226(c)] is invoked,", "paragraph_id": "para_1373" }, { "text": "and about five months in the minority of cases in which the alien", "paragraph_id": "para_1374" }, { "text": "chooses to appeal.” 538 U.S. 510, 530 (2003). As the panel noted, “[t]he", "paragraph_id": "para_1375" }, { "text": "Court explained that proceedings against ‘criminal aliens’ are", "paragraph_id": "para_1376" }, { "text": "typically completed so swiftly because they are prioritized by the", "paragraph_id": "para_1377" }, { "text": "Agency over the mine run of removal cases.” Barbosa da Cunha,", "paragraph_id": "para_1378" }, { "text": "175 F.4th at 95 (quoting Demore, 538 U.S. at 530 n.13). The panel then", "paragraph_id": "para_1379" }, { "text": "speculated that “[i]f the government is right that Section 1225(b)(2)(A)", "paragraph_id": "para_1380" }, { "text": "mandates detention of millions of non-criminal noncitizens, there is", "paragraph_id": "para_1381" }, { "text": "no reason to think that removal can be completed so swiftly for all or", "paragraph_id": "para_1382" }, { "text": "even most of those detained.” Id. To support that speculation, the", "paragraph_id": "para_1383" }, { "text": "panel cited the finding of the Vera Institute of Justice that “the average", "paragraph_id": "para_1384" }, { "text": "wait time today for an initial decision in removal proceedings is more", "paragraph_id": "para_1385" }, { "text": "than two years.” Id. at 95 n.12.18", "paragraph_id": "para_1386" }, { "text": "There are three problems with the panel’s analysis. The first", "paragraph_id": "para_1387" }, { "text": "problem is that the statistic on which the panel relied is misleading.", "paragraph_id": "para_1388" }, { "text": "The government maintains a priority calendar for detained aliens, so", "paragraph_id": "para_1389" }, { "text": "the time to completion of removal proceedings for detained aliens is", "paragraph_id": "para_1390" }, { "text": "significantly shorter than for non-detained aliens. “Since its creation in", "paragraph_id": "para_1391" }, { "text": "1983,” the Executive Office for Immigration Review “has prioritized", "paragraph_id": "para_1392" }, { "text": "all cases involving individuals in detention or custody, regardless of", "paragraph_id": "para_1393" }, { "text": "18 The Vera Institute of Justice is a think tank that aims “[t]o end the", "paragraph_id": "para_1394" }, { "text": "criminalization and mass incarceration of people of color, immigrants, and", "paragraph_id": "para_1395" }, { "text": "people experiencing poverty.” Vera Institute of Justice, About Us,", "paragraph_id": "para_1396" }, { "text": "https://perma.cc/UP9T-FVJJ.", "paragraph_id": "para_1397" }, { "text": "38", "paragraph_id": "para_1398" }, { "text": "the custodian.” 19 EOIR maintains “a performance metric” for", "paragraph_id": "para_1399" }, { "text": "immigration adjudicators “that ‘ninety-five percent (95%) of all non-", "paragraph_id": "para_1400" }, { "text": "status detained removal cases should be completed within 60 days of", "paragraph_id": "para_1401" }, { "text": "filing of the Notice to Appear (NTA), reopening or recalendaring of", "paragraph_id": "para_1402" }, { "text": "the case, remand from the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), or", "paragraph_id": "para_1403" }, { "text": "notification of detention.’” 20 And a report of the Government", "paragraph_id": "para_1404" }, { "text": "Accountability Office “records the actual ‘median number of days", "paragraph_id": "para_1405" }, { "text": "from case start to initial completion’ for detained aliens for fiscal years", "paragraph_id": "para_1406" }, { "text": "2016 through 2023. In 2023 it was 47 days; in 2022 it was 50 days; in", "paragraph_id": "para_1407" }, { "text": "2021 it was 50 days; in 2020 it was 92 days; in 2019 it was 52 days; in", "paragraph_id": "para_1408" }, { "text": "2018 it was 39 days; and in 2017 it was 40 days.”21", "paragraph_id": "para_1409" }, { "text": "As in Demore, the government prioritizes removal proceedings", "paragraph_id": "para_1410" }, { "text": "for detained aliens. So there is the same reason to believe that such an", "paragraph_id": "para_1411" }, { "text": "alien will be detained for only a “limited period.” Demore, 538 U.S. at", "paragraph_id": "para_1412" }, { "text": "526. If in the future the government were unable to maintain its", "paragraph_id": "para_1413" }, { "text": "priority calendar, that could be the subject of a future as-applied", "paragraph_id": "para_1414" }, { "text": "challenge to determine whether and to what extent the administrative", "paragraph_id": "para_1415" }, { "text": "changes presented a constitutional problem. But a federal court", "paragraph_id": "para_1416" }, { "text": "cannot invent a constitutional violation based on speculation that the", "paragraph_id": "para_1417" }, { "text": "government might not be able to meet the metrics it has met until", "paragraph_id": "para_1418" }, { "text": "19 Mahdawi v. Trump, 183 F.4th 103, 134 (2d Cir. 2026) (Menashi, J.,", "paragraph_id": "para_1419" }, { "text": "concurring) (quoting Executive Office for Immigration Review, U.S.", "paragraph_id": "para_1420" }, { "text": "Department of Justice, PM 25-47: Case Priorities and Immigration Court", "paragraph_id": "para_1421" }, { "text": "Performance Measures at 2 (Sept. 12, 2025), https://perma.cc/K99B-Z2B9).", "paragraph_id": "para_1422" }, { "text": "20 Id. (alteration omitted) (quoting Executive Office for Immigration", "paragraph_id": "para_1423" }, { "text": "Review, supra note 19, at 7).", "paragraph_id": "para_1424" }, { "text": "21 Id. (alteration and footnote omitted) (quoting Government", "paragraph_id": "para_1425" }, { "text": "Accountability Office, GAO-25-106867: Immigration Courts: Actions", "paragraph_id": "para_1426" }, { "text": "Needed to Track and Report Noncitizens’ Hearing Appearances (Dec. 19,", "paragraph_id": "para_1427" }, { "text": "2024), https://perma.cc/7CWR-3A7N).", "paragraph_id": "para_1428" }, { "text": "39", "paragraph_id": "para_1429" }, { "text": "now. “A federal court does not sit to render a decision on hypothetical", "paragraph_id": "para_1430" }, { "text": "facts,” Wheeler v. Barrera, 417 U.S. 402, 426-27 (1974), because", "paragraph_id": "para_1431" }, { "text": "“conjectural results are too remote and uncertain to furnish materials", "paragraph_id": "para_1432" }, { "text": "for judicial determination,” Chadwick v. Kelly, 187 U.S. 540, 547 (1903).", "paragraph_id": "para_1433" }, { "text": "The second problem is that the panel misunderstood the", "paragraph_id": "para_1434" }, { "text": "holding of Demore. The Supreme Court has explained why the", "paragraph_id": "para_1435" }, { "text": "detention in Demore raised no constitutional concerns while the", "paragraph_id": "para_1436" }, { "text": "detention it previously considered in Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678", "paragraph_id": "para_1437" }, { "text": "(2001), did raise such concerns:", "paragraph_id": "para_1438" }, { "text": "In Demore v. Kim, we distinguished § 1226(c) from the", "paragraph_id": "para_1439" }, { "text": "statutory provision in Zadvydas by pointing out that", "paragraph_id": "para_1440" }, { "text": "detention under § 1226(c) has “a definite termination", "paragraph_id": "para_1441" }, { "text": "point”: the conclusion of removal proceedings. As we", "paragraph_id": "para_1442" }, { "text": "made clear there, that “definite termination point”—and", "paragraph_id": "para_1443" }, { "text": "not some arbitrary time limit devised by courts—marks", "paragraph_id": "para_1444" }, { "text": "the end of the Government’s detention authority under", "paragraph_id": "para_1445" }, { "text": "§ 1226(c).", "paragraph_id": "para_1446" }, { "text": "Jennings, 583 U.S. at 304 (citation omitted) (quoting Demore, 538 U.S.", "paragraph_id": "para_1447" }, { "text": "at 529). In Demore, the Court acknowledged that an indefinite detention", "paragraph_id": "para_1448" }, { "text": "may raise constitutional concerns, but it held that the detention in that", "paragraph_id": "para_1449" }, { "text": "case was permissible precisely because a detention under § 1226(c) is", "paragraph_id": "para_1450" }, { "text": "neither “indefinite” nor “potentially permanent.” 538 U.S. at 528", "paragraph_id": "para_1451" }, { "text": "(quoting Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 690-91). The fact that a § 1226(c)", "paragraph_id": "para_1452" }, { "text": "detention has “a definite termination point” made it “materially", "paragraph_id": "para_1453" }, { "text": "different” from the sort of detention that raised constitutional", "paragraph_id": "para_1454" }, { "text": "concerns in Zadvydas. Id. at 528-29. Indeed, Zadvydas itself recognized", "paragraph_id": "para_1455" }, { "text": "the distinction. The Court distinguished the provision at issue in that", "paragraph_id": "para_1456" }, { "text": "case from § 1226(c) based on the indefiniteness of the detention:", "paragraph_id": "para_1457" }, { "text": "“[I]mportantly,” said the Court, “post-removal-period detention,", "paragraph_id": "para_1458" }, { "text": "unlike detention pending a determination of removability or during the", "paragraph_id": "para_1459" }, { "text": "40", "paragraph_id": "para_1460" }, { "text": "subsequent 90-day removal period, has no obvious termination", "paragraph_id": "para_1461" }, { "text": "point.” Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 697 (emphasis added).", "paragraph_id": "para_1462" }, { "text": "The panel sought to recast Demore as if it announced a", "paragraph_id": "para_1463" }, { "text": "constitutional rule based on the length of an immigration detention.", "paragraph_id": "para_1464" }, { "text": "The Court in Demore expressly held, however, that a mandatory", "paragraph_id": "para_1465" }, { "text": "detention pending removal proceedings is constitutional because", "paragraph_id": "para_1466" }, { "text": "such a detention is not “indefinite” but has a “definite termination", "paragraph_id": "para_1467" }, { "text": "point.” 538 U.S. at 529. The decisions of the Supreme Court", "paragraph_id": "para_1468" }, { "text": "consistently reflect the view that “[t]he indefiniteness of the", "paragraph_id": "para_1469" }, { "text": "detention—not its mere length—implicate[s] the Due Process", "paragraph_id": "para_1470" }, { "text": "Clause.” Black v. Almodovar, 156 F.4th 171, 183 (2d Cir. 2025) (Menashi,", "paragraph_id": "para_1471" }, { "text": "J., dissenting from the denial of rehearing en banc).", "paragraph_id": "para_1472" }, { "text": "The detention provision in this case, § 1225(b)(2), authorizes", "paragraph_id": "para_1473" }, { "text": "detention only pending removal proceedings. Like the mandatory", "paragraph_id": "para_1474" }, { "text": "detention pending removal proceedings at issue in Demore, a", "paragraph_id": "para_1475" }, { "text": "detention under § 1225(b)(2) has a “definite termination point.”", "paragraph_id": "para_1476" }, { "text": "Demore, 538 U.S. at 529. The holding of Demore—that mandatory", "paragraph_id": "para_1477" }, { "text": "detention pending removal proceedings creates no constitutional", "paragraph_id": "para_1478" }, { "text": "problem—resolves any challenge to a detention under § 1225(b)(2).", "paragraph_id": "para_1479" }, { "text": "The third problem is that our circuit’s case law has already", "paragraph_id": "para_1480" }, { "text": "addressed what happens when a mandatory detention pending", "paragraph_id": "para_1481" }, { "text": "removal proceedings becomes “unreasonably prolonged.” Black v.", "paragraph_id": "para_1482" }, { "text": "Decker, 103 F.4th 133, 138 (2d Cir. 2024). Even assuming that our court", "paragraph_id": "para_1483" }, { "text": "has taken the correct side of a circuit split,22 our court did not purport", "paragraph_id": "para_1484" }, { "text": "to hold that mandatory detention pending removal proceedings", "paragraph_id": "para_1485" }, { "text": "pursuant to § 1226(c) by itself raised constitutional concerns. “Far", "paragraph_id": "para_1486" }, { "text": "22 But see Genalo v. Black, No. 25-886, 2026 WL 1718025 (U.S. June 15, 2026)", "paragraph_id": "para_1487" }, { "text": "(granting certiorari on the question), appeal dismissed per stipulation, 2026 WL", "paragraph_id": "para_1488" }, { "text": "2752021 (U.S. Sept. 16, 2026).", "paragraph_id": "para_1489" }, { "text": "41", "paragraph_id": "para_1490" }, { "text": "from invalidating § 1226(c) and upending its policy of mandatory", "paragraph_id": "para_1491" }, { "text": "detention, the Black panel held that, as a remedy for an as-applied", "paragraph_id": "para_1492" }, { "text": "challenge to unreasonably prolonged detention, a district court", "paragraph_id": "para_1493" }, { "text": "properly ordered the government to justify an individual petitioner’s", "paragraph_id": "para_1494" }, { "text": "continued § 1226(c) detention at a bond hearing.” Black, 156 F.4th at", "paragraph_id": "para_1495" }, { "text": "192 (Chin & Carney, JJ., statement in support of the denial of", "paragraph_id": "para_1496" }, { "text": "rehearing en banc) (internal quotation marks, emphasis, and citations", "paragraph_id": "para_1497" }, { "text": "omitted).", "paragraph_id": "para_1498" }, { "text": "Our court did not say that the mandatory detention statute was", "paragraph_id": "para_1499" }, { "text": "unconstitutional. Rather, our court held that the remedy of a bond", "paragraph_id": "para_1500" }, { "text": "hearing is available in an as-applied challenge once a specific", "paragraph_id": "para_1501" }, { "text": "detention has become unreasonably prolonged. See Mahdawi,", "paragraph_id": "para_1502" }, { "text": "183 F.4th at 121 (“[I]n the event that removal proceedings involving a", "paragraph_id": "para_1503" }, { "text": "detained individual are unreasonably prolonged, this Court’s", "paragraph_id": "para_1504" }, { "text": "precedent provides that a petitioner may file a habeas petition and", "paragraph_id": "para_1505" }, { "text": "challenge his detention ‘on the ground that it has reached an", "paragraph_id": "para_1506" }, { "text": "unreasonable length.’”) (alteration and footnote omitted) (quoting", "paragraph_id": "para_1507" }, { "text": "Velasco Lopez v. Decker, 978 F.3d 842, 852 (2d Cir. 2020)). The", "paragraph_id": "para_1508" }, { "text": "availability of this as-applied remedy should lessen the purported", "paragraph_id": "para_1509" }, { "text": "constitutional concerns with a mandatory detention statute. But the", "paragraph_id": "para_1510" }, { "text": "panel in this case went further than our court did in Black or Velasco", "paragraph_id": "para_1511" }, { "text": "Lopez to hold that a mandatory detention provision, on its face,", "paragraph_id": "para_1512" }, { "text": "“sounds constitutional alarms” based on the mere possibility that it", "paragraph_id": "para_1513" }, { "text": "might someday authorize lengthy detentions. Barbosa da Cunha, 175", "paragraph_id": "para_1514" }, { "text": "F.4th at 94.", "paragraph_id": "para_1515" }, { "text": "Third, the panel said that a statute that subjects aliens such as", "paragraph_id": "para_1516" }, { "text": "Barbosa da Cunha to “categorical detention without bond” would", "paragraph_id": "para_1517" }, { "text": "violate the Constitution because Barbosa da Cunha, “like many", "paragraph_id": "para_1518" }, { "text": "unlawfully present noncitizens, presents no risk of flight nor any", "paragraph_id": "para_1519" }, { "text": "danger to the community.” Id. Such a statute would apparently “raise", "paragraph_id": "para_1520" }, { "text": "42", "paragraph_id": "para_1521" }, { "text": "serious constitutional questions, especially because the government", "paragraph_id": "para_1522" }, { "text": "has failed to explain how it would bear a ‘reasonable relation’ to any", "paragraph_id": "para_1523" }, { "text": "legitimate, non-punitive purpose.” Id. at 95 (quoting Zadvydas, 533", "paragraph_id": "para_1524" }, { "text": "U.S. at 690).", "paragraph_id": "para_1525" }, { "text": "This argument proves too much. The panel did not dispute that", "paragraph_id": "para_1526" }, { "text": "if Barbosa da Cunha arrived at the border and presented himself for", "paragraph_id": "para_1527" }, { "text": "inspection, the government would properly detain him pursuant to", "paragraph_id": "para_1528" }, { "text": "§ 1225(b)(2). See, e.g., Abdyl-Salam v. Blanche, No. 26-CV-1132, 2026 WL", "paragraph_id": "para_1529" }, { "text": "2030067, at *2 (W.D.N.Y. July 13, 2026) (concluding that even under", "paragraph_id": "para_1530" }, { "text": "Barbosa da Cunha “aliens who were encountered at or near the border”", "paragraph_id": "para_1531" }, { "text": "are detained pursuant to § 1225(b)(2)). And if Barbosa da Cunha—in", "paragraph_id": "para_1532" }, { "text": "addition to being a constructive applicant for admission based on his", "paragraph_id": "para_1533" }, { "text": "illegal presence—became an actual applicant for admission by", "paragraph_id": "para_1534" }, { "text": "seeking an adjustment of status, the government also could detain", "paragraph_id": "para_1535" }, { "text": "him pursuant to § 1225(b)(2). But in neither of these circumstances", "paragraph_id": "para_1536" }, { "text": "would the government be required to establish a risk of flight or", "paragraph_id": "para_1537" }, { "text": "danger to the community. If the arriving alien or the literal applicant", "paragraph_id": "para_1538" }, { "text": "may permissibly be detained—without a showing that he is a flight", "paragraph_id": "para_1539" }, { "text": "risk or dangerous—then what makes the detention of an unadmitted", "paragraph_id": "para_1540" }, { "text": "illegal alien uniquely illegitimate and punitive?", "paragraph_id": "para_1541" }, { "text": "Underlying the panel opinion is the suspicion that § 1225(b)(2)", "paragraph_id": "para_1542" }, { "text": "is facially unconstitutional. The panel argued that “[w]hatever the", "paragraph_id": "para_1543" }, { "text": "duration of detention, it must still serve its purported immigration", "paragraph_id": "para_1544" }, { "text": "purpose, which must outweigh the individual’s constitutionally", "paragraph_id": "para_1545" }, { "text": "protected interest in avoiding physical restraint.” Barbosa da Cunha,", "paragraph_id": "para_1546" }, { "text": "175 F.4th at 94-95 (internal quotation marks, alteration, and citation", "paragraph_id": "para_1547" }, { "text": "omitted). The panel concluded that “[i]n Demore, that justification was", "paragraph_id": "para_1548" }, { "text": "satisfied because Section 1226(c) applies only to ‘criminal aliens.’” Id.", "paragraph_id": "para_1549" }, { "text": "at 95 (citing Demore, 538 U.S. at 517-23). But § 1225(b)(2) does not", "paragraph_id": "para_1550" }, { "text": "apply only to criminal aliens, and there is no way to read that statute", "paragraph_id": "para_1551" }, { "text": "43", "paragraph_id": "para_1552" }, { "text": "to so limit its scope. Based on the logic of the panel opinion, therefore,", "paragraph_id": "para_1553" }, { "text": "§ 1225(b)(2) is unconstitutional.", "paragraph_id": "para_1554" }, { "text": "That is an extraordinary suggestion—and it is obviously", "paragraph_id": "para_1555" }, { "text": "incorrect. “Detention during removal proceedings is a", "paragraph_id": "para_1556" }, { "text": "constitutionally permissible part of that process.” Demore, 538 U.S. at", "paragraph_id": "para_1557" }, { "text": "531. Congress may constitutionally require the continued detention", "paragraph_id": "para_1558" }, { "text": "of an alien pending removal proceedings even when the government", "paragraph_id": "para_1559" }, { "text": "has “made no determination that [an individual alien] posed either a", "paragraph_id": "para_1560" }, { "text": "danger to society or a flight risk.” Id. at 514. The government may", "paragraph_id": "para_1561" }, { "text": "“deny bail to the detainees ‘by reference to the legislative scheme’", "paragraph_id": "para_1562" }, { "text": "even without any finding of flight risk.” Id. at 524 (quoting Carlson v.", "paragraph_id": "para_1563" }, { "text": "Landon, 342 U.S. 524, 543 (1952)). The “Court’s longstanding view” is", "paragraph_id": "para_1564" }, { "text": "“that the Government may constitutionally detain deportable aliens", "paragraph_id": "para_1565" }, { "text": "during the limited period necessary for their removal proceedings.”", "paragraph_id": "para_1566" }, { "text": "Id. at 526. Congress does not need to mandate individualized", "paragraph_id": "para_1567" }, { "text": "determinations to conclude that such detention prevents those aliens", "paragraph_id": "para_1568" }, { "text": "“from fleeing prior to or during their removal proceedings.” Id. at 528.", "paragraph_id": "para_1569" }, { "text": "The panel might prefer even more individualized hearings than the", "paragraph_id": "para_1570" }, { "text": "current immigration framework allows, but the Supreme Court has", "paragraph_id": "para_1571" }, { "text": "“emphasized that ‘reasonable presumptions and generic rules,’ even", "paragraph_id": "para_1572" }, { "text": "when made by the [executive branch] rather than Congress, are not", "paragraph_id": "para_1573" }, { "text": "necessarily impermissible exercises of Congress’ traditional power to", "paragraph_id": "para_1574" }, { "text": "legislate with respect to aliens.” Id. at 526 (quoting Reno v. Flores, 507", "paragraph_id": "para_1575" }, { "text": "U.S. 292, 313 (1993)).", "paragraph_id": "para_1576" }, { "text": "The panel failed to establish a plausible constitutional concern", "paragraph_id": "para_1577" }, { "text": "with the government’s interpretation of § 1225(b)(2) because (1) an", "paragraph_id": "para_1578" }, { "text": "alien has no constitutional right to counsel in immigration", "paragraph_id": "para_1579" }, { "text": "proceedings, (2) neither empirical evidence nor the statute itself", "paragraph_id": "para_1580" }, { "text": "suggests that a detention pending removal proceedings will be", "paragraph_id": "para_1581" }, { "text": "unreasonably prolonged, and in any event our court has addressed", "paragraph_id": "para_1582" }, { "text": "44", "paragraph_id": "para_1583" }, { "text": "such a possibility through as-applied challenges, and (3) it is", "paragraph_id": "para_1584" }, { "text": "constitutional for Congress to require the detention of deportable", "paragraph_id": "para_1585" }, { "text": "aliens pending removal proceedings without individualized", "paragraph_id": "para_1586" }, { "text": "determinations of dangerousness or risk of flight.", "paragraph_id": "para_1587" }, { "text": "II", "paragraph_id": "para_1588" }, { "text": "The second basic error of the panel was to exercise habeas", "paragraph_id": "para_1589" }, { "text": "jurisdiction over this case. Barbosa da Cunha filed a habeas petition", "paragraph_id": "para_1590" }, { "text": "in the district court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See Barbosa da Cunha", "paragraph_id": "para_1591" }, { "text": "v. Freden, No. 25-CV-6532, 2025 WL 3280575, at *1 (W.D.N.Y. Nov. 25,", "paragraph_id": "para_1592" }, { "text": "2025). But his habeas petition did not challenge the authority of the", "paragraph_id": "para_1593" }, { "text": "government to detain him. Rather, in his removal proceedings Barbosa", "paragraph_id": "para_1594" }, { "text": "da Cunha “requested a bond hearing, which an immigration judge", "paragraph_id": "para_1595" }, { "text": "denied based on a determination that he was subject to mandatory", "paragraph_id": "para_1596" }, { "text": "detention under Section 1225(b)(2)(A).” Barbosa da Cunha, 175 F.4th at", "paragraph_id": "para_1597" }, { "text": "70. He then filed a habeas petition asking a federal court to order the", "paragraph_id": "para_1598" }, { "text": "government to reclassify him as subject to discretionary detention", "paragraph_id": "para_1599" }, { "text": "under § 1226(a) and accordingly to provide him a bond hearing. The", "paragraph_id": "para_1600" }, { "text": "district court ruled that his “application for habeas relief is granted to", "paragraph_id": "para_1601" }, { "text": "the extent that the [c]ourt finds he is detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a)", "paragraph_id": "para_1602" }, { "text": "and is therefore entitled to a bond hearing under the relevant", "paragraph_id": "para_1603" }, { "text": "regulations.” Barbosa da Cunha, 2025 WL 3280575, at *7 (citation and", "paragraph_id": "para_1604" }, { "text": "capitalization omitted). The district court “ordered that [the", "paragraph_id": "para_1605" }, { "text": "government] hold a bond hearing for [Barbosa da Cunha] within ten", "paragraph_id": "para_1606" }, { "text": "(10) days of the date of this order.” Id. (capitalization omitted).", "paragraph_id": "para_1607" }, { "text": "The Supreme Court has identified cases in which “the nature of", "paragraph_id": "para_1608" }, { "text": "the relief sought by the habeas petitioners suggests that habeas is not", "paragraph_id": "para_1609" }, { "text": "appropriate.” Munaf, 553 U.S. at 693. It has explained that “[h]abeas", "paragraph_id": "para_1610" }, { "text": "is at its core a remedy for unlawful executive detention,” and “[t]he", "paragraph_id": "para_1611" }, { "text": "45", "paragraph_id": "para_1612" }, { "text": "typical remedy for such detention is, of course, release.” Id. In this", "paragraph_id": "para_1613" }, { "text": "case, Barbosa da Cunha did not claim he was entitled to release but", "paragraph_id": "para_1614" }, { "text": "asked the district court to order the government to reclassify him and", "paragraph_id": "para_1615" }, { "text": "to hold a bond hearing.23 By requesting that the district court order", "paragraph_id": "para_1616" }, { "text": "the government to take actions other than release, Barbosa da Cunha", "paragraph_id": "para_1617" }, { "text": "was actually seeking relief akin to a mandatory injunction or", "paragraph_id": "para_1618" }, { "text": "mandamus. Cf. Miguel v. McCarl, 291 U.S. 442, 452 (1934) (“The", "paragraph_id": "para_1619" }, { "text": "mandatory injunction here prayed for is in effect equivalent to a writ", "paragraph_id": "para_1620" }, { "text": "of mandamus, and governed by like considerations.”).", "paragraph_id": "para_1621" }, { "text": "Allowing an alien to bring such a claim in habeas “would", "paragraph_id": "para_1622" }, { "text": "require us to broaden the scope of habeas relief beyond recognition.”", "paragraph_id": "para_1623" }, { "text": "Wilkinson, 544 U.S. at 85 (Scalia, J., concurring). And it would", "paragraph_id": "para_1624" }, { "text": "contradict the holding of the Supreme Court in Thuraissigiam. In that", "paragraph_id": "para_1625" }, { "text": "case, the Supreme Court held that the relief an alien “sought in the", "paragraph_id": "para_1626" }, { "text": "habeas petition and still seeks—a writ directing [the government] to", "paragraph_id": "para_1627" }, { "text": "provide him a new opportunity to apply for asylum—is not a form of", "paragraph_id": "para_1628" }, { "text": "relief that was available in habeas at the time of the adoption of the", "paragraph_id": "para_1629" }, { "text": "Constitution.” Thuraissigiam, 591 U.S. at 117 n.13 (internal quotation", "paragraph_id": "para_1630" }, { "text": "marks, alteration, and citation omitted). The same reasoning applies", "paragraph_id": "para_1631" }, { "text": "here: “[T]he writ has never encompassed [Barbosa da Cunha’s]", "paragraph_id": "para_1632" }, { "text": "claims.” Id. at 116 n.12.", "paragraph_id": "para_1633" }, { "text": "A", "paragraph_id": "para_1634" }, { "text": "At the founding, the writ of habeas corpus “simply provided a", "paragraph_id": "para_1635" }, { "text": "means of contesting the lawfulness of restraint and securing release.”", "paragraph_id": "para_1636" }, { "text": "23 His petition asked the district court to “[i]ssue a Writ of Habeas Corpus", "paragraph_id": "para_1637" }, { "text": "ordering Respondents to release Petitioner immediately, or, in the", "paragraph_id": "para_1638" }, { "text": "alternative, provide Petitioner with a bond hearing.” App’x 20. The petition", "paragraph_id": "para_1639" }, { "text": "thereby recognized that the purported injury he sought to remedy was the", "paragraph_id": "para_1640" }, { "text": "denial of a bond hearing rather than the detention itself.", "paragraph_id": "para_1641" }, { "text": "46", "paragraph_id": "para_1642" }, { "text": "Id. at 117 (emphasis added). “Blackstone wrote that habeas was a", "paragraph_id": "para_1643" }, { "text": "means to ‘remove the injury of unjust and illegal confinement.’” Id.", "paragraph_id": "para_1644" }, { "text": "(alteration omitted) (quoting 3 William Blackstone, Commentaries", "paragraph_id": "para_1645" }, { "text": "*137). “Justice Story described the ‘common law’ writ the same way,”", "paragraph_id": "para_1646" }, { "text": "explaining that habeas “is the appropriate remedy to ascertain", "paragraph_id": "para_1647" }, { "text": "whether any person is rightfully in confinement or not.” Id. (alteration", "paragraph_id": "para_1648" }, { "text": "omitted) (quoting 3 Commentaries on the Constitution of the United", "paragraph_id": "para_1649" }, { "text": "States § 1333, at 206 (1833)). Habeas allowed a detainee to challenge", "paragraph_id": "para_1650" }, { "text": "an unlawful confinement and to obtain release.", "paragraph_id": "para_1651" }, { "text": "While the availability of the writ has expanded since the", "paragraph_id": "para_1652" }, { "text": "founding, 24 the Supreme Court has emphasized that it remains a", "paragraph_id": "para_1653" }, { "text": "mechanism for obtaining release from unlawful custody. See Preiser v.", "paragraph_id": "para_1654" }, { "text": "Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 (1973) (“It is clear … from the common-", "paragraph_id": "para_1655" }, { "text": "law history of the writ, that the essence of habeas corpus is an attack", "paragraph_id": "para_1656" }, { "text": "by a person in custody upon the legality of that custody, and that the", "paragraph_id": "para_1657" }, { "text": "traditional function of the writ is to secure release from illegal", "paragraph_id": "para_1658" }, { "text": "custody.”); see also Munaf, 553 U.S. at 693.", "paragraph_id": "para_1659" }, { "text": "To understand Barbosa da Cunha as seeking habeas relief", "paragraph_id": "para_1660" }, { "text": "“would extend the writ of habeas corpus far beyond its scope ‘when", "paragraph_id": "para_1661" }, { "text": "the Constitution was drafted and ratified.’” Thuraissigiam, 591 U.S. at", "paragraph_id": "para_1662" }, { "text": "107 (quoting Boumediene, 553 U.S. at 746). “Indeed, [Barbosa da", "paragraph_id": "para_1663" }, { "text": "Cunha’s] use of the writ would have been unrecognizable at that time.", "paragraph_id": "para_1664" }, { "text": "Habeas has traditionally been a means to secure release from unlawful", "paragraph_id": "para_1665" }, { "text": "detention, but [he] invokes the writ to achieve an entirely different", "paragraph_id": "para_1666" }, { "text": "end.” Id. Barbosa da Cunha sought to be classified as an alien detained", "paragraph_id": "para_1667" }, { "text": "24 See, e.g., Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723, 826-27 (2008) (Scalia, J.,", "paragraph_id": "para_1668" }, { "text": "dissenting) (“Today, for the first time in our Nation’s history, the Court", "paragraph_id": "para_1669" }, { "text": "confers a constitutional right to habeas corpus on alien enemies detained", "paragraph_id": "para_1670" }, { "text": "abroad by our military forces in the course of an ongoing war.”).", "paragraph_id": "para_1671" }, { "text": "47", "paragraph_id": "para_1672" }, { "text": "under § 1226 rather than § 1225. And if he obtained that relief, he", "paragraph_id": "para_1673" }, { "text": "could then receive a bond hearing from the executive branch. And", "paragraph_id": "para_1674" }, { "text": "following that hearing, the executive branch might or might not", "paragraph_id": "para_1675" }, { "text": "release him on bond pending his removal proceedings.", "paragraph_id": "para_1676" }, { "text": "In requesting this relief, Barbosa da Cunha resembles the", "paragraph_id": "para_1677" }, { "text": "petitioner in Thuraissigiam. In Thuraissigiam, the immigration detainee", "paragraph_id": "para_1678" }, { "text": "sought relief he labeled “habeas,” but the Supreme Court explained", "paragraph_id": "para_1679" }, { "text": "that he had invoked the “writ to achieve an entirely different end,", "paragraph_id": "para_1680" }, { "text": "namely, to obtain additional administrative review of his asylum", "paragraph_id": "para_1681" }, { "text": "claim and ultimately to obtain authorization to stay in this country.”", "paragraph_id": "para_1682" }, { "text": "Id. In his brief, the detainee stated “that ‘he requests an entirely", "paragraph_id": "para_1683" }, { "text": "ordinary habeas remedy: conditional release pending a lawful", "paragraph_id": "para_1684" }, { "text": "adjudication.’” Id. at 117 n.13. The Supreme Court first noted that the", "paragraph_id": "para_1685" }, { "text": "detainee did not mention release in his petition, but it emphasized", "paragraph_id": "para_1686" }, { "text": "that “the critical point is that what he sought in the habeas petition", "paragraph_id": "para_1687" }, { "text": "and still seeks—a writ directing the Department to provide him a new", "paragraph_id": "para_1688" }, { "text": "opportunity to apply for asylum—is not a form of relief that was", "paragraph_id": "para_1689" }, { "text": "available in habeas at the time of the adoption of the Constitution.”", "paragraph_id": "para_1690" }, { "text": "Id. (internal quotation marks, alterations, and citation omitted). The", "paragraph_id": "para_1691" }, { "text": "Court concluded that, historically, “the writ has never encompassed", "paragraph_id": "para_1692" }, { "text": "respondent’s claims.” Id. at 116 n.12.", "paragraph_id": "para_1693" }, { "text": "The cases that have addressed challenges to conditions of", "paragraph_id": "para_1694" }, { "text": "confinement also show that a claim is cognizable in habeas only when", "paragraph_id": "para_1695" }, { "text": "the proper remedy is release. In those cases, the Supreme Court has", "paragraph_id": "para_1696" }, { "text": "indicated that a detained prisoner cannot use habeas to challenge the", "paragraph_id": "para_1697" }, { "text": "conditions of his confinement as distinct from the fact of his", "paragraph_id": "para_1698" }, { "text": "confinement. Formally, the Supreme Court has reserved judgment on", "paragraph_id": "para_1699" }, { "text": "48", "paragraph_id": "para_1700" }, { "text": "the question.25 But the Court has “repeatedly permitted prisoners to", "paragraph_id": "para_1701" }, { "text": "bring § 1983 actions challenging the conditions of their confinement.”", "paragraph_id": "para_1702" }, { "text": "Wilkinson, 544 U.S. at 84 (citing Cooper v. Pate, 378 U.S. 546 (1964), and", "paragraph_id": "para_1703" }, { "text": "Wilwording v. Swenson, 404 U.S. 249, 251 (1971)). So the Court has", "paragraph_id": "para_1704" }, { "text": "avoided allowing conditions-of-confinement claims in habeas but has", "paragraph_id": "para_1705" }, { "text": "squarely held that such “actions may be brought under § 1983.” Id. at", "paragraph_id": "para_1706" }, { "text": "76 (emphasis added).26", "paragraph_id": "para_1707" }, { "text": "Justice Scalia wrote separately in Wilkinson to “note that a", "paragraph_id": "para_1708" }, { "text": "contrary holding”—allowing claims not seeking release to be brought", "paragraph_id": "para_1709" }, { "text": "in habeas—“would require [the Court] to broaden the scope of habeas", "paragraph_id": "para_1710" }, { "text": "relief beyond recognition.” 544 U.S. at 85 (Scalia, J., concurring). It", "paragraph_id": "para_1711" }, { "text": "would conflict with the historical scope of the writ “to say that the", "paragraph_id": "para_1712" }, { "text": "habeas statute authorizes federal courts to order relief that neither", "paragraph_id": "para_1713" }, { "text": "terminates custody, accelerates the future date of release from", "paragraph_id": "para_1714" }, { "text": "custody, nor reduces the level of custody.” Id. at 86. “A holding that,”", "paragraph_id": "para_1715" }, { "text": "25 See Ziglar v. Abbasi, 582 U.S. 120, 144 (2017) (“[W]e have left open the", "paragraph_id": "para_1716" }, { "text": "question whether [detainees] might be able to challenge their confinement", "paragraph_id": "para_1717" }, { "text": "conditions via a petition for a writ of habeas corpus.”); Bell v. Wolfish, 441", "paragraph_id": "para_1718" }, { "text": "U.S. 520, 526 n.6 (1979) (“[W]e leave to another day the question of the", "paragraph_id": "para_1719" }, { "text": "propriety of using a writ of habeas corpus to obtain review of the conditions", "paragraph_id": "para_1720" }, { "text": "of confinement, as distinct from the fact or length of the confinement", "paragraph_id": "para_1721" }, { "text": "itself.”).", "paragraph_id": "para_1722" }, { "text": "26 See also Nelson v. Campbell, 541 U.S. 637, 643 (2004) (“[C]onstitutional", "paragraph_id": "para_1723" }, { "text": "claims that merely challenge the conditions of a prisoner’s confinement,", "paragraph_id": "para_1724" }, { "text": "whether the inmate seeks monetary or injunctive relief, fall outside of that", "paragraph_id": "para_1725" }, { "text": "core and may be brought pursuant to § 1983 in the first instance.”);", "paragraph_id": "para_1726" }, { "text": "Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S. 749, 750 (2004) (“Federal law opens two main", "paragraph_id": "para_1727" }, { "text": "avenues to relief on complaints related to imprisonment: a petition for", "paragraph_id": "para_1728" }, { "text": "habeas corpus and a complaint under … § 1983. Challenges to the validity", "paragraph_id": "para_1729" }, { "text": "of any confinement or to particulars affecting its duration are the province", "paragraph_id": "para_1730" }, { "text": "of habeas corpus; requests for relief turning on circumstances of", "paragraph_id": "para_1731" }, { "text": "confinement may be presented in a § 1983 action.”) (citations omitted).", "paragraph_id": "para_1732" }, { "text": "49", "paragraph_id": "para_1733" }, { "text": "for example, “judicial immersion in the administration of", "paragraph_id": "para_1734" }, { "text": "discretionary parole lies at the ‘core of habeas’ would utterly sever the", "paragraph_id": "para_1735" }, { "text": "writ from its common-law roots.” Id.", "paragraph_id": "para_1736" }, { "text": "Our court has suggested an answer to the question that the", "paragraph_id": "para_1737" }, { "text": "Supreme Court has reserved. We have held that “at least where a", "paragraph_id": "para_1738" }, { "text": "petitioner alleges unconstitutional conditions that are irremediable", "paragraph_id": "para_1739" }, { "text": "but for the release of the petitioner, such conditions of confinement", "paragraph_id": "para_1740" }, { "text": "claims are cognizable under habeas.” Diaz v. Kopp, 146 F.4th 301, 307-", "paragraph_id": "para_1741" }, { "text": "08 (2d Cir. 2025) (second emphasis added). That holding confined", "paragraph_id": "para_1742" }, { "text": "habeas relief to cases in which release is a necessary remedy. In other", "paragraph_id": "para_1743" }, { "text": "words, habeas may be used to challenge conditions of confinement if", "paragraph_id": "para_1744" }, { "text": "release is the only possible remedy. If the harm may be addressed by", "paragraph_id": "para_1745" }, { "text": "a remedy other than release, then habeas is improper. That view", "paragraph_id": "para_1746" }, { "text": "prevails in several circuits.27 And it shows that Barbosa da Cunha", "paragraph_id": "para_1747" }, { "text": "was not properly seeking habeas relief in this case.", "paragraph_id": "para_1748" }, { "text": "27 See Hope v. Warden York Cnty. Prison, 972 F.3d 310, 324-25 (3d Cir. 2020)", "paragraph_id": "para_1749" }, { "text": "(“We are satisfied that their § 2241 claim seeking only release on the basis", "paragraph_id": "para_1750" }, { "text": "that unconstitutional confinement conditions require it is not improper.”);", "paragraph_id": "para_1751" }, { "text": "Timms v. Attorney General, 93 F.4th 187, 191 n.8 (4th Cir. 2024) (“The", "paragraph_id": "para_1752" }, { "text": "Supreme Court has not yet decided whether detainees can challenge their", "paragraph_id": "para_1753" }, { "text": "confinement conditions via a habeas petition. In several unpublished", "paragraph_id": "para_1754" }, { "text": "decisions, we have held that claims challenging conditions of confinement", "paragraph_id": "para_1755" }, { "text": "cannot be brought in habeas petitions.”) (citations omitted); Spencer v.", "paragraph_id": "para_1756" }, { "text": "Haynes, 774 F.3d 467, 470 (8th Cir. 2014) (“Spencer’s constitutional claim", "paragraph_id": "para_1757" }, { "text": "relates to the conditions of his confinement. Consequently, a habeas petition", "paragraph_id": "para_1758" }, { "text": "is not the proper claim to remedy his alleged injury.”) (citation omitted);", "paragraph_id": "para_1759" }, { "text": "Nettles v. Grounds, 830 F.3d 922, 930 (9th Cir. 2016) (“We read these", "paragraph_id": "para_1760" }, { "text": "statements [from the Supreme Court] as strongly suggesting that habeas is", "paragraph_id": "para_1761" }, { "text": "available only for state prisoner claims that lie at the core of habeas (and is", "paragraph_id": "para_1762" }, { "text": "the exclusive remedy for such claims), while § 1983 is the exclusive remedy", "paragraph_id": "para_1763" }, { "text": "for state prisoner claims that do not lie at the core of habeas.”).", "paragraph_id": "para_1764" }, { "text": "50", "paragraph_id": "para_1765" }, { "text": "B", "paragraph_id": "para_1766" }, { "text": "One might compare the relief the district court ordered to a writ", "paragraph_id": "para_1767" }, { "text": "of “conditional release” issued to a prisoner who successfully", "paragraph_id": "para_1768" }, { "text": "challenged his conviction in habeas. See Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390,", "paragraph_id": "para_1769" }, { "text": "403 (1993) (“The typical relief granted in federal habeas corpus is a", "paragraph_id": "para_1770" }, { "text": "conditional order of release unless the State elects to retry the", "paragraph_id": "para_1771" }, { "text": "successful habeas petitioner.”). The panel suggested this comparison.", "paragraph_id": "para_1772" }, { "text": "See Barbosa da Cunha, 175 F.4th at 70 (“The district court granted the", "paragraph_id": "para_1773" }, { "text": "petition and ordered the government to either provide a bond hearing", "paragraph_id": "para_1774" }, { "text": "or release Petitioner within ten days.”). But that is an improper", "paragraph_id": "para_1775" }, { "text": "analogy for two reasons.", "paragraph_id": "para_1776" }, { "text": "First, if conditional release were generally available in habeas,", "paragraph_id": "para_1777" }, { "text": "the conditions-of-confinement cases would be wrongly decided. The", "paragraph_id": "para_1778" }, { "text": "petitioner would always be able to seek an order that the government", "paragraph_id": "para_1779" }, { "text": "must fix the conditions of confinement or allow release. Any claim", "paragraph_id": "para_1780" }, { "text": "could be recast as a request for conditional release. But the request for", "paragraph_id": "para_1781" }, { "text": "such an order is not actually a request for release; it is a request for an", "paragraph_id": "para_1782" }, { "text": "injunction directing the government to do something other than", "paragraph_id": "para_1783" }, { "text": "release, namely to rectify the conditions of confinement. Barbosa da", "paragraph_id": "para_1784" }, { "text": "Cunha made that sort of request here. Even though his request was", "paragraph_id": "para_1785" }, { "text": "framed as conditional release, his prayer for relief would be satisfied", "paragraph_id": "para_1786" }, { "text": "if he were reclassified and then given a bond hearing. The bond", "paragraph_id": "para_1787" }, { "text": "hearing would entitle him only to apply for a release on bond. And", "paragraph_id": "para_1788" }, { "text": "even if he obtained release on bond following the hearing, the", "paragraph_id": "para_1789" }, { "text": "“Attorney General at any time may revoke” that bond before", "paragraph_id": "para_1790" }, { "text": "proceeding to “rearrest the alien under the original warrant, and", "paragraph_id": "para_1791" }, { "text": "detain [him].” 8 U.S.C. § 1226(b).", "paragraph_id": "para_1792" }, { "text": "By awarding such relief, a district court is directing how the", "paragraph_id": "para_1793" }, { "text": "government must administer its detention of the petitioner—as it does", "paragraph_id": "para_1794" }, { "text": "51", "paragraph_id": "para_1795" }, { "text": "when addressing a conditions-of-confinement claim—not deciding", "paragraph_id": "para_1796" }, { "text": "whether the government has the authority to detain him. Because", "paragraph_id": "para_1797" }, { "text": "Barbosa da Cunha challenges the manner of administration rather", "paragraph_id": "para_1798" }, { "text": "than the authority to detain, the relief that he “seeks—a writ [directing", "paragraph_id": "para_1799" }, { "text": "the federal government to reclassify him and give him a bond", "paragraph_id": "para_1800" }, { "text": "hearing]—is not a form of relief that was available in habeas at the", "paragraph_id": "para_1801" }, { "text": "time of the adoption of the Constitution.” Thuraissigiam, 591 U.S. at", "paragraph_id": "para_1802" }, { "text": "117 n.13.", "paragraph_id": "para_1803" }, { "text": "Second, a prisoner detained pursuant to an unlawful conviction", "paragraph_id": "para_1804" }, { "text": "or sentence does not bring a habeas petition seeking a new trial. He", "paragraph_id": "para_1805" }, { "text": "seeks release from his unlawful confinement. If he prevails, the", "paragraph_id": "para_1806" }, { "text": "judgment against him is deemed to be “invalid,” and “[c]onditional", "paragraph_id": "para_1807" }, { "text": "writs [merely] enable habeas courts to give [the government] time to", "paragraph_id": "para_1808" }, { "text": "replace an invalid judgment with a valid one.” Wilkinson, 544 U.S. at", "paragraph_id": "para_1809" }, { "text": "87 (Scalia, J., concurring). In other words, “the prisoner who shows", "paragraph_id": "para_1810" }, { "text": "that his sentencing was unconstitutional is actually entitled to release,", "paragraph_id": "para_1811" }, { "text": "because the judgment pursuant to which he is confined has been", "paragraph_id": "para_1812" }, { "text": "invalidated; the conditional writ serves only to ‘delay the release in", "paragraph_id": "para_1813" }, { "text": "order to provide the [government] an opportunity to correct the", "paragraph_id": "para_1814" }, { "text": "constitutional violation.’” Id. at 86 (alteration omitted) (quoting Hilton", "paragraph_id": "para_1815" }, { "text": "v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 775 (1987)).", "paragraph_id": "para_1816" }, { "text": "Barbosa da Cunha occupies a very different position. When he", "paragraph_id": "para_1817" }, { "text": "was first detained, he “requested a bond hearing, which an", "paragraph_id": "para_1818" }, { "text": "immigration judge denied based on a determination that he was", "paragraph_id": "para_1819" }, { "text": "subject to mandatory detention under Section 1225(b)(2)(A), and thus", "paragraph_id": "para_1820" }, { "text": "ineligible for bond under Section 1226(a),” and after that denial he", "paragraph_id": "para_1821" }, { "text": "“filed a habeas petition.” Barbosa da Cunha, 175 F.4th at 70. If he had", "paragraph_id": "para_1822" }, { "text": "initially received the non-release remedy of a bond hearing, he would", "paragraph_id": "para_1823" }, { "text": "have received all the relief to which he claimed to be entitled in his", "paragraph_id": "para_1824" }, { "text": "habeas petition. And that relief would not have been based on a", "paragraph_id": "para_1825" }, { "text": "52", "paragraph_id": "para_1826" }, { "text": "showing that he was “entitled to release.” Wilkinson, 544 U.S. at 86", "paragraph_id": "para_1827" }, { "text": "(Scalia, J., concurring).", "paragraph_id": "para_1828" }, { "text": "In other words, if Barbosa da Cunha prevailed on the", "paragraph_id": "para_1829" }, { "text": "interpretive question in this case—showing that he is not subject to", "paragraph_id": "para_1830" }, { "text": "mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)—he still “has not established", "paragraph_id": "para_1831" }, { "text": "a right to release, and so cannot obtain habeas relief—conditional or", "paragraph_id": "para_1832" }, { "text": "otherwise.” Id. at 87. Instead, Barbosa da Cunha would be reclassified", "paragraph_id": "para_1833" }, { "text": "as detained under § 1226(a). That reclassification would get him a", "paragraph_id": "para_1834" }, { "text": "bond hearing. But even that would not entitle him to release. And", "paragraph_id": "para_1835" }, { "text": "even if the hearing resulted in his release on bond, the Attorney", "paragraph_id": "para_1836" }, { "text": "General could revoke his bond and redetain him, see 8 U.S.C.", "paragraph_id": "para_1837" }, { "text": "§ 1226(b), and there would be no judicial review of the Attorney", "paragraph_id": "para_1838" }, { "text": "General’s decision, see id. § 1226(e) (“The Attorney General’s", "paragraph_id": "para_1839" }, { "text": "discretionary judgment regarding the application of this section shall", "paragraph_id": "para_1840" }, { "text": "not be subject to review. No court may set aside any action or decision", "paragraph_id": "para_1841" }, { "text": "by the Attorney General under this section regarding the detention of", "paragraph_id": "para_1842" }, { "text": "any alien or the revocation or denial of bond or parole.”) (emphasis", "paragraph_id": "para_1843" }, { "text": "added); see also Mahdawi, 183 F.4th at 124-33 (Menashi, J., concurring)", "paragraph_id": "para_1844" }, { "text": "(discussing § 1226(e)).", "paragraph_id": "para_1845" }, { "text": "Barbosa da Cunha does not resemble the prisoner who receives", "paragraph_id": "para_1846" }, { "text": "a conditional writ of habeas corpus. If that prisoner prevails and the", "paragraph_id": "para_1847" }, { "text": "government takes no further action, he is released from custody", "paragraph_id": "para_1848" }, { "text": "because the judgment against him is “invalid.” By contrast, if Barbosa", "paragraph_id": "para_1849" }, { "text": "da Cunha prevails and the government takes no further action, he is", "paragraph_id": "para_1850" }, { "text": "sorted into a different statutory provision that still permits the", "paragraph_id": "para_1851" }, { "text": "government to keep him detained. The panel may have characterized", "paragraph_id": "para_1852" }, { "text": "the habeas remedy in this case as a conditional writ. But", "paragraph_id": "para_1853" }, { "text": "“[c]onditional writs are not an all-purpose weapon with which", "paragraph_id": "para_1854" }, { "text": "federal habeas courts can extort from the [government] custodian", "paragraph_id": "para_1855" }, { "text": "forms of relief short of release, whether a new parole hearing or a new", "paragraph_id": "para_1856" }, { "text": "53", "paragraph_id": "para_1857" }, { "text": "mattress in the applicant’s cell.” Wilkinson, 544 U.S. at 87 (Scalia, J.,", "paragraph_id": "para_1858" }, { "text": "concurring). That is how the district court employed the habeas", "paragraph_id": "para_1859" }, { "text": "remedy in this case: as a tool to extort a new hearing from the", "paragraph_id": "para_1860" }, { "text": "government even though Barbosa da Cunha did not establish an", "paragraph_id": "para_1861" }, { "text": "entitlement to release. Our court erred by allowing the district court", "paragraph_id": "para_1862" }, { "text": "to do so.", "paragraph_id": "para_1863" }, { "text": "C", "paragraph_id": "para_1864" }, { "text": "In this litigation, Barbosa da Cunha has sought to use the writ", "paragraph_id": "para_1865" }, { "text": "in the way that the Supreme Court rejected in Wilkinson. In that case,", "paragraph_id": "para_1866" }, { "text": "two prisoners were “serving lengthy terms in Ohio prisons.” Id. at 76", "paragraph_id": "para_1867" }, { "text": "(majority opinion). One prisoner, Dotson, “began to serve a life", "paragraph_id": "para_1868" }, { "text": "sentence in 1981,” and in 2000 a parole officer “determined that he", "paragraph_id": "para_1869" }, { "text": "should not receive further consideration for parole for at least five", "paragraph_id": "para_1870" }, { "text": "more years.” Id. But “[i]n reaching this conclusion about Dotson’s", "paragraph_id": "para_1871" }, { "text": "parole eligibility, the officer used parole guidelines first adopted in", "paragraph_id": "para_1872" }, { "text": "1998, after Dotson began to serve his term.” Id. at 76-77. Dotson", "paragraph_id": "para_1873" }, { "text": "argued “that the retroactive application of these new, harsher", "paragraph_id": "para_1874" }, { "text": "guidelines to his preguidelines case violates the Constitution’s Ex Post", "paragraph_id": "para_1875" }, { "text": "Facto and Due Process Clauses.” Id. at 77. He asked a federal district", "paragraph_id": "para_1876" }, { "text": "court to issue a “declaration” and “permanent injunction ordering", "paragraph_id": "para_1877" }, { "text": "prison officials to grant him an ‘immediate parole hearing in", "paragraph_id": "para_1878" }, { "text": "accordance with the statutory laws and administrative rules in place", "paragraph_id": "para_1879" }, { "text": "when he committed his crimes.’” Id. (alteration omitted). Johnson, the", "paragraph_id": "para_1880" }, { "text": "other prisoner in the case, brought similar claims. See id.", "paragraph_id": "para_1881" }, { "text": "“Both prisoners brought” their cases under § 1983. Id. But the", "paragraph_id": "para_1882" }, { "text": "district court “concluded that a § 1983 action does not lie and that the", "paragraph_id": "para_1883" }, { "text": "prisoner would have to seek relief through a habeas corpus suit.” Id.", "paragraph_id": "para_1884" }, { "text": "The Supreme Court upheld the reversal of that decision, holding that", "paragraph_id": "para_1885" }, { "text": "the claims could proceed under § 1983. See id. at 82. The Court", "paragraph_id": "para_1886" }, { "text": "54", "paragraph_id": "para_1887" }, { "text": "explained that “Dotson and Johnson seek relief that will render", "paragraph_id": "para_1888" }, { "text": "invalid the state procedures used to deny parole eligibility (Dotson)", "paragraph_id": "para_1889" }, { "text": "and parole suitability (Johnson). Neither respondent seeks an", "paragraph_id": "para_1890" }, { "text": "injunction ordering his immediate or speedier release into the", "paragraph_id": "para_1891" }, { "text": "community.” Id. (citation omitted). In particular, “[s]uccess for", "paragraph_id": "para_1892" }, { "text": "Dotson does not mean immediate release from confinement or a", "paragraph_id": "para_1893" }, { "text": "shorter stay in prison; it means at most new eligibility review, which", "paragraph_id": "para_1894" }, { "text": "at most will speed consideration of a new parole application.” Id.", "paragraph_id": "para_1895" }, { "text": "Likewise, “[s]uccess for Johnson means at most a new parole hearing", "paragraph_id": "para_1896" }, { "text": "at which Ohio parole authorities may, in their discretion, decline to", "paragraph_id": "para_1897" }, { "text": "shorten his prison term.” Id. “Because neither prisoner’s claim would", "paragraph_id": "para_1898" }, { "text": "necessarily spell speedier release, neither lies at ‘the core of habeas", "paragraph_id": "para_1899" }, { "text": "corpus.’” Id. (quoting Preiser, 411 U.S. at 489).", "paragraph_id": "para_1900" }, { "text": "The Court held that the prisoners’ claims were not properly", "paragraph_id": "para_1901" }, { "text": "considered habeas claims because the prisoners did not claim an", "paragraph_id": "para_1902" }, { "text": "entitlement to release. The prisoners instead sought new hearings", "paragraph_id": "para_1903" }, { "text": "under lawful parole standards. As in this case, those new hearings", "paragraph_id": "para_1904" }, { "text": "could have increased the likelihood of eventual release. But because the", "paragraph_id": "para_1905" }, { "text": "requested relief would not “necessarily spell speedier release,” the", "paragraph_id": "para_1906" }, { "text": "Supreme Court concluded that § 1983 rather than habeas was the", "paragraph_id": "para_1907" }, { "text": "proper avenue for seeking it. The same reasoning applies to Barbosa", "paragraph_id": "para_1908" }, { "text": "da Cunha. He requested a bond hearing that would increase the", "paragraph_id": "para_1909" }, { "text": "possibility of release but not necessarily result in release. He is just", "paragraph_id": "para_1910" }, { "text": "like the prisoners in Wilkinson.", "paragraph_id": "para_1911" }, { "text": "The panel opinion contradicts Wilkinson and subsequent", "paragraph_id": "para_1912" }, { "text": "decisions of the Supreme Court. Because the relief Barbosa da Cunha", "paragraph_id": "para_1913" }, { "text": "sought “is not a form of relief that was available in habeas at the time", "paragraph_id": "para_1914" }, { "text": "of the adoption of the Constitution,” the district court lacked habeas", "paragraph_id": "para_1915" }, { "text": "jurisdiction and the petition should have been either dismissed or", "paragraph_id": "para_1916" }, { "text": "55", "paragraph_id": "para_1917" }, { "text": "construed as a request for injunctive relief against the government.", "paragraph_id": "para_1918" }, { "text": "Thuraissigiam, 591 U.S. at 117 n.13.", "paragraph_id": "para_1919" }, { "text": "D", "paragraph_id": "para_1920" }, { "text": "The distinction between habeas relief, on the one hand, and", "paragraph_id": "para_1921" }, { "text": "injunctive or mandamus relief, on the other, is not a mere formality.", "paragraph_id": "para_1922" }, { "text": "First, the Suspension Clause restricts the authority of Congress", "paragraph_id": "para_1923" }, { "text": "to make traditional habeas remedies unavailable. See Boumediene, 553", "paragraph_id": "para_1924" }, { "text": "U.S. at 771 (“If the privilege of habeas corpus is to be denied to the", "paragraph_id": "para_1925" }, { "text": "detainees now before us, Congress must act in accordance with the", "paragraph_id": "para_1926" }, { "text": "requirements of the Suspension Clause.”). For that reason, a court will", "paragraph_id": "para_1927" }, { "text": "interpret the jurisdictional bars in the INA differently depending on", "paragraph_id": "para_1928" }, { "text": "whether those bars are understood to deny an avenue for relief that", "paragraph_id": "para_1929" }, { "text": "was available in habeas when the Constitution was adopted.28 By", "paragraph_id": "para_1930" }, { "text": "contrast, the Suspension Clause does not limit the authority of", "paragraph_id": "para_1931" }, { "text": "Congress to withdraw jurisdiction over non-habeas claims such as", "paragraph_id": "para_1932" }, { "text": "claims for injunctive relief. As a result, understanding whether the", "paragraph_id": "para_1933" }, { "text": "claim of an immigration detainee is properly considered in habeas", "paragraph_id": "para_1934" }, { "text": "will affect how much a court will respect the jurisdictional bars in the", "paragraph_id": "para_1935" }, { "text": "INA.", "paragraph_id": "para_1936" }, { "text": "Second, if a petitioner prevails on a habeas claim, then he is", "paragraph_id": "para_1937" }, { "text": "automatically entitled to relief. “[W]here probable ground is shown", "paragraph_id": "para_1938" }, { "text": "that the party is in custody under or by color of authority of the", "paragraph_id": "para_1939" }, { "text": "United States, and is imprisoned without just cause, and, therefore,", "paragraph_id": "para_1940" }, { "text": "has a right to be delivered, the writ of habeas corpus then becomes a", "paragraph_id": "para_1941" }, { "text": "28 See, e.g., Demore, 538 U.S. at 537 (O’Connor, J., concurring in part and", "paragraph_id": "para_1942" }, { "text": "concurring in the judgment) (“Because § 1226(e) plainly deprives courts of", "paragraph_id": "para_1943" }, { "text": "federal habeas jurisdiction over claims that mandatory detention under", "paragraph_id": "para_1944" }, { "text": "§ 1226(c) is unconstitutional, one could conceivably argue that such a repeal", "paragraph_id": "para_1945" }, { "text": "violates the Suspension Clause.”).", "paragraph_id": "para_1946" }, { "text": "56", "paragraph_id": "para_1947" }, { "text": "writ of right which may not be denied, as it ought to be granted to every", "paragraph_id": "para_1948" }, { "text": "man who is unlawfully committed or detained in prison or otherwise", "paragraph_id": "para_1949" }, { "text": "restrained of his liberty.” Ex parte Lange, 85 U.S. 163, 183 (1873)", "paragraph_id": "para_1950" }, { "text": "(emphasis added).", "paragraph_id": "para_1951" }, { "text": "When the decision to award relief depends on equitable", "paragraph_id": "para_1952" }, { "text": "considerations, however, relief is not automatic. 29 “[I]t is not the", "paragraph_id": "para_1953" }, { "text": "province of a court of equity to interfere for the prevention of an act", "paragraph_id": "para_1954" }, { "text": "merely because it is illegal.” Ward v. City of Little Rock, 41 Ark. 526, 531", "paragraph_id": "para_1955" }, { "text": "(1883). The “equity tradition” has “developed a series of doctrines to", "paragraph_id": "para_1956" }, { "text": "limit equitable powers—principles about what equity will not do.”30", "paragraph_id": "para_1957" }, { "text": "Among those doctrines is the principle that “[i]t is not within the", "paragraph_id": "para_1958" }, { "text": "jurisdiction of a court of equity to interfere with the public duties of", "paragraph_id": "para_1959" }, { "text": "the departments of government” because “[i]ts jurisdiction pertains", "paragraph_id": "para_1960" }, { "text": "only to questions of the maintenance of civil rights [and] property", "paragraph_id": "para_1961" }, { "text": "rights.” Heffran v. Hutchins, 160 Ill. 550, 554 (1896).31", "paragraph_id": "para_1962" }, { "text": "29 While a remedy such as mandamus is legal, the right to such a remedy", "paragraph_id": "para_1963" }, { "text": "will “turn on equitable considerations.” United States ex rel. Girard Tr. Co. v.", "paragraph_id": "para_1964" }, { "text": "Helvering, 301 U.S. 540, 543 (1937); see In re Skinner & Eddy Corp., 265 U.S. 86,", "paragraph_id": "para_1965" }, { "text": "96 (1924) (“Although classed as a legal remedy, in issuing it a court must be", "paragraph_id": "para_1966" }, { "text": "largely controlled by equitable principles.”); United States ex rel. Arant v.", "paragraph_id": "para_1967" }, { "text": "Lane, 249 U.S. 367, 371 (1919) (“This court has lately said that while", "paragraph_id": "para_1968" }, { "text": "mandamus is classed as a legal remedy, it is a remedial process, which is", "paragraph_id": "para_1969" }, { "text": "awarded not as a matter of right, but in the exercise of a sound judicial", "paragraph_id": "para_1970" }, { "text": "discretion and upon equitable principles.”); Duncan Townsite Co. v. Lane, 245", "paragraph_id": "para_1971" }, { "text": "U.S. 308, 312 (1917).", "paragraph_id": "para_1972" }, { "text": "30 Aditya Bamzai & Samuel L. Bray, Debs and the Federal Equity Jurisdiction,", "paragraph_id": "para_1973" }, { "text": "98 Notre Dame L. Rev. 699, 709 (2022).", "paragraph_id": "para_1974" }, { "text": "31 See 1 John Norton Pomeroy, A Treatise on Equitable Remedies § 337, at", "paragraph_id": "para_1975" }, { "text": "595 (1905) (“[C]ourts hesitate to interfere with the executive branch of the", "paragraph_id": "para_1976" }, { "text": "government in matters affecting the performance of its functions.”); see also", "paragraph_id": "para_1977" }, { "text": "Taylor v. Kercheval, 82 F. 497, 500 (C.C.D. Ind. 1897) (“Injury to property,", "paragraph_id": "para_1978" }, { "text": "actual or threatened, is the foundation of chancery jurisdiction. It is not", "paragraph_id": "para_1979" }, { "text": "57", "paragraph_id": "para_1980" }, { "text": "In this case, even the panel agreed that Barbosa da Cunha was", "paragraph_id": "para_1981" }, { "text": "not entitled to release. The question was which authority the", "paragraph_id": "para_1982" }, { "text": "government should invoke to detain him. By ordering the", "paragraph_id": "para_1983" }, { "text": "government to rely on § 1226(a), the panel did not vindicate a “civil", "paragraph_id": "para_1984" }, { "text": "right,” a private right to a particular statutory classification, or any", "paragraph_id": "para_1985" }, { "text": "clear statutory entitlement to a bond hearing.32 Instead, the panel", "paragraph_id": "para_1986" }, { "text": "issued a decision that directs how the government administers the", "paragraph_id": "para_1987" }, { "text": "immigration system. Equitable considerations require a court to do", "paragraph_id": "para_1988" }, { "text": "more before engaging in “this sort of judicial immersion in the", "paragraph_id": "para_1989" }, { "text": "administration” of immigration procedures. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. at 86", "paragraph_id": "para_1990" }, { "text": "(Scalia, J., concurring). “An injunction is an exercise of a court’s", "paragraph_id": "para_1991" }, { "text": "equitable authority, to be ordered only after taking into account all of", "paragraph_id": "para_1992" }, { "text": "the circumstances that bear on the need for prospective relief.” Salazar", "paragraph_id": "para_1993" }, { "text": "v. Buono, 559 U.S. 700, 714 (2010). Such “[e]quitable relief is not", "paragraph_id": "para_1994" }, { "text": "granted as a matter of course, and a court should be particularly", "paragraph_id": "para_1995" }, { "text": "cautious when contemplating relief that implicates public interests.”", "paragraph_id": "para_1996" }, { "text": "Id. (citation omitted).", "paragraph_id": "para_1997" }, { "text": "concerned with matters of a political nature.”) (quoting Muhler v. Hedekin,", "paragraph_id": "para_1998" }, { "text": "20 N.E. 700, 701 (Ind. 1889)); Sheridan v. Colvin, 78 Ill. 237, 247 (1875) (“It is", "paragraph_id": "para_1999" }, { "text": "elementary law, that the subject matter of the jurisdiction of the court of", "paragraph_id": "para_2000" }, { "text": "chancery is civil property. The court is conversant only with questions of", "paragraph_id": "para_2001" }, { "text": "property and the maintenance of civil rights. … The court has no", "paragraph_id": "para_2002" }, { "text": "jurisdiction in matters merely criminal or merely immoral, which do not", "paragraph_id": "para_2003" }, { "text": "affect any right to property. Nor do matters of a political character come", "paragraph_id": "para_2004" }, { "text": "within the jurisdiction of the court of chancery.”).", "paragraph_id": "para_2005" }, { "text": "32 Cf. FS Credit Opportunities Corp. v. Saba Cap. Master Fund, Ltd., 146", "paragraph_id": "para_2006" }, { "text": "S. Ct. 1546, 1553 (2026) (“To create a private right, a statute must use rights-", "paragraph_id": "para_2007" }, { "text": "creating language aimed at protecting a particular class of persons.", "paragraph_id": "para_2008" }, { "text": "Language that focuses on the person regulated rather than the individuals", "paragraph_id": "para_2009" }, { "text": "protected does not fit the bill.”) (internal quotation marks, alteration, and", "paragraph_id": "para_2010" }, { "text": "citations omitted).", "paragraph_id": "para_2011" }, { "text": "58", "paragraph_id": "para_2012" }, { "text": "It is especially important to consider the equities in this context.", "paragraph_id": "para_2013" }, { "text": "The Constitution requires special caution before a court orders", "paragraph_id": "para_2014" }, { "text": "injunctive relief against the government with regard to enforcement", "paragraph_id": "para_2015" }, { "text": "of the immigration laws. See Biden, 597 U.S. at 805-06 (identifying “the", "paragraph_id": "para_2016" }, { "text": "context of immigration law, where ‘the dynamic nature of relations", "paragraph_id": "para_2017" }, { "text": "with other countries requires the Executive Branch to ensure that", "paragraph_id": "para_2018" }, { "text": "enforcement policies are consistent with this Nation’s foreign", "paragraph_id": "para_2019" }, { "text": "policy’”) (alteration omitted) (quoting Arizona v. United States, 567", "paragraph_id": "para_2020" }, { "text": "U.S. 387, 397 (2012)). By entertaining a request for injunctive relief", "paragraph_id": "para_2021" }, { "text": "against the government as if it were a proper habeas remedy, the", "paragraph_id": "para_2022" }, { "text": "panel sidestepped these equitable considerations. I would rehear the", "paragraph_id": "para_2023" }, { "text": "case en banc to clarify that traditional equitable considerations apply", "paragraph_id": "para_2024" }, { "text": "to such a request for relief.", "paragraph_id": "para_2025" }, { "text": "E", "paragraph_id": "para_2026" }, { "text": "“[T]he refusal to consider arguments not raised is a sound", "paragraph_id": "para_2027" }, { "text": "prudential practice, rather than a statutory or constitutional mandate,", "paragraph_id": "para_2028" }, { "text": "and there are times when prudence dictates the contrary.” Davis v.", "paragraph_id": "para_2029" }, { "text": "United States, 512 U.S. 452, 464 (1994) (Scalia, J., concurring). “While", "paragraph_id": "para_2030" }, { "text": "‘courts normally decide only questions presented by the parties,’ we", "paragraph_id": "para_2031" }, { "text": "are not ‘hidebound by the precise arguments of counsel,’” In re", "paragraph_id": "para_2032" }, { "text": "TransCare Corp., 81 F.4th 37, 61 (2d Cir. 2023) (Menashi, J., dissenting", "paragraph_id": "para_2033" }, { "text": "in part) (citation omitted) (quoting United States v. Sineneng-Smith, 590", "paragraph_id": "para_2034" }, { "text": "U.S. 371, 376, 380 (2020)), and we “have ‘discretion to consider", "paragraph_id": "para_2035" }, { "text": "arguments waived or forfeited below because our waiver and", "paragraph_id": "para_2036" }, { "text": "forfeiture doctrine is entirely prudential,’” id. (quoting United States v.", "paragraph_id": "para_2037" }, { "text": "Gomez, 877 F.3d 76, 95 (2d Cir. 2017)). “[W]e have exercised our", "paragraph_id": "para_2038" }, { "text": "discretion to review waived or abandoned arguments ‘where the", "paragraph_id": "para_2039" }, { "text": "argument presents a question of law and there is no need for", "paragraph_id": "para_2040" }, { "text": "additional fact-finding.’” Tarpon Bay Partners LLC v. Zerez Holdings", "paragraph_id": "para_2041" }, { "text": "Corp., 79 F.4th 206, 232 n.25 (2d Cir. 2023) (alteration omitted) (quoting", "paragraph_id": "para_2042" }, { "text": "59", "paragraph_id": "para_2043" }, { "text": "Sniado v. Bank Aus. AG, 378 F.3d 210, 213 (2d Cir. 2004)). The habeas", "paragraph_id": "para_2044" }, { "text": "argument here presents a question of law and requires no additional", "paragraph_id": "para_2045" }, { "text": "fact-finding.", "paragraph_id": "para_2046" }, { "text": "The courts of appeals will rehear a case en banc and seek", "paragraph_id": "para_2047" }, { "text": "supplemental briefing from the parties to address a question that the", "paragraph_id": "para_2048" }, { "text": "panel did not consider.33 I would have followed that course here.", "paragraph_id": "para_2049" }, { "text": "* * *", "paragraph_id": "para_2050" }, { "text": "Congress “deemed” an “alien present in the United States who", "paragraph_id": "para_2051" }, { "text": "has not been admitted” to be an “applicant for admission.” 8 U.S.C.", "paragraph_id": "para_2052" }, { "text": "§ 1225(a)(1). Even though the unadmitted and illegally present alien", "paragraph_id": "para_2053" }, { "text": "is not literally an applicant for admission, the statute requires the", "paragraph_id": "para_2054" }, { "text": "government—and a court—to treat him as one. Unadmitted illegal", "paragraph_id": "para_2055" }, { "text": "aliens are “deemed constructive applicants for admission by operation", "paragraph_id": "para_2056" }, { "text": "of [§ 1225(a)(1)] of the [INA].” Lemus-Losa, 25 I. & N. Dec. at 743 n.6.", "paragraph_id": "para_2057" }, { "text": "If we follow that statutory directive, this case becomes", "paragraph_id": "para_2058" }, { "text": "straightforward. An applicant for admission is seeking admission. So", "paragraph_id": "para_2059" }, { "text": "pursuant to § 1225(a)(1), an “alien present in the United States who", "paragraph_id": "para_2060" }, { "text": "has not been admitted” is seeking admission. Under § 1225(b)(2)(A),", "paragraph_id": "para_2061" }, { "text": "therefore, if such an alien “is not clearly and beyond a doubt entitled", "paragraph_id": "para_2062" }, { "text": "33 See, e.g., United States v. Campbell, 26 F.4th 860, 865 (11th Cir. 2022) (noting", "paragraph_id": "para_2063" }, { "text": "that the court “asked the parties in our en banc briefing notice” to consider", "paragraph_id": "para_2064" }, { "text": "“the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule,” which “neither", "paragraph_id": "para_2065" }, { "text": "addressed” before the panel); Alam v. Garland, 11 F.4th 1133, 1135 (9th Cir.", "paragraph_id": "para_2066" }, { "text": "2021) (noting that “[i]n considering the petition for rehearing en banc, we", "paragraph_id": "para_2067" }, { "text": "requested that the parties provide supplemental briefing as to whether", "paragraph_id": "para_2068" }, { "text": "there is a conflict between a single factor rule and the REAL ID Act,” which", "paragraph_id": "para_2069" }, { "text": "the parties had not previously argued); United States v. White, 863 F.3d 784,", "paragraph_id": "para_2070" }, { "text": "787 (8th Cir. 2017) (noting that for the en banc rehearing, “[t]he parties", "paragraph_id": "para_2071" }, { "text": "submitted supplemental briefing” on whether a prior precedent “should", "paragraph_id": "para_2072" }, { "text": "remain good law” and if not how a different standard would apply).", "paragraph_id": "para_2073" }, { "text": "60", "paragraph_id": "para_2074" }, { "text": "to be admitted, the alien shall be detained for a [removal]", "paragraph_id": "para_2075" }, { "text": "proceeding.”", "paragraph_id": "para_2076" }, { "text": "The panel avoided that straightforward result by artificially", "paragraph_id": "para_2077" }, { "text": "limiting the reach of the deeming provision that Congress enacted.", "paragraph_id": "para_2078" }, { "text": "According to the panel, an unadmitted illegal alien will be deemed to", "paragraph_id": "para_2079" }, { "text": "be an applicant for admission only for purposes of that statutory label", "paragraph_id": "para_2080" }, { "text": "but will not be treated as an applicant for admission unless the alien", "paragraph_id": "para_2081" }, { "text": "is literally applying for admission. Because a constructive applicant for", "paragraph_id": "para_2082" }, { "text": "admission is not literally seeking admission, the panel concluded that", "paragraph_id": "para_2083" }, { "text": "a constructive applicant cannot be treated the way an actual applicant", "paragraph_id": "para_2084" }, { "text": "would be. Under the panel’s interpretation, there is no operative", "paragraph_id": "para_2085" }, { "text": "provision of § 1225 that treats an unadmitted illegal alien as an", "paragraph_id": "para_2086" }, { "text": "applicant for admission. That is an indefensibly constrained reading", "paragraph_id": "para_2087" }, { "text": "of the deeming provision that fails to respect the choice of Congress", "paragraph_id": "para_2088" }, { "text": "to treat an alien who has not been admitted as if he were applying for", "paragraph_id": "para_2089" }, { "text": "admission.", "paragraph_id": "para_2090" }, { "text": "The panel dressed up its atextual interpretation of the INA with", "paragraph_id": "para_2091" }, { "text": "the language of textualism and citations to online dictionaries—even", "paragraph_id": "para_2092" }, { "text": "though “dictionary definitions” are “largely unhelpful” when “the", "paragraph_id": "para_2093" }, { "text": "interpretive question presented here is best answered by reference to", "paragraph_id": "para_2094" }, { "text": "the statutory classification that pervades the INA.” Cirrus Rojas, 183", "paragraph_id": "para_2095" }, { "text": "F.4th at 935 (Sykes, J., dissenting). The panel insisted that its reliance", "paragraph_id": "para_2096" }, { "text": "on such extra-statutory sources represented faithful adherence to the", "paragraph_id": "para_2097" }, { "text": "statute. It said that “[i]f judges could add to, remodel, update, or", "paragraph_id": "para_2098" }, { "text": "detract from old statutory terms inspired only by extratextual sources", "paragraph_id": "para_2099" }, { "text": "and our own imaginations, we would risk amending statutes outside", "paragraph_id": "para_2100" }, { "text": "the legislative process reserved for the people’s representatives.”", "paragraph_id": "para_2101" }, { "text": "Barbosa da Cunha, 175 F.4th at 96 (quoting Bostock, 590 U.S. at 654-55).", "paragraph_id": "para_2102" }, { "text": "61", "paragraph_id": "para_2103" }, { "text": "“[B]ut no one should be fooled.” Bostock, 590 U.S. at 685 (Alito,", "paragraph_id": "para_2104" }, { "text": "J., dissenting). The panel’s opinion “is like a pirate ship. It sails under", "paragraph_id": "para_2105" }, { "text": "a textualist flag, but what it actually represents is a theory of statutory", "paragraph_id": "para_2106" }, { "text": "interpretation that Justice Scalia excoriated.” Id. Justice Scalia decried", "paragraph_id": "para_2107" }, { "text": "“the judge-empowering consequences” of an “interpretive rule” that", "paragraph_id": "para_2108" }, { "text": "“[w]hen there is ‘dissonance’ between the statutory definition and the", "paragraph_id": "para_2109" }, { "text": "ordinary meaning of the defined word, the latter may prevail.” Bond,", "paragraph_id": "para_2110" }, { "text": "572 U.S. at 871 (Scalia, J., concurring in the judgment). In his view,", "paragraph_id": "para_2111" }, { "text": "“the true rule is entirely clear: ‘When a statute includes an explicit", "paragraph_id": "para_2112" }, { "text": "definition, we must follow that definition, even if it varies from that", "paragraph_id": "para_2113" }, { "text": "term’s ordinary meaning.’” Id. (quoting Stenberg, 530 U.S. at 942).", "paragraph_id": "para_2114" }, { "text": "Rather than follow the express directive of Congress to treat an", "paragraph_id": "para_2115" }, { "text": "unadmitted illegal alien as if he were an applicant for admission, the", "paragraph_id": "para_2116" }, { "text": "panel opportunistically replaced the constructive understanding of", "paragraph_id": "para_2117" }, { "text": "the statutory terms with its own literal understanding. To do", "paragraph_id": "para_2118" }, { "text": "otherwise, it announced, “would send a seismic shock through our", "paragraph_id": "para_2119" }, { "text": "immigration detention system and society, straining our already", "paragraph_id": "para_2120" }, { "text": "overcrowded detention infrastructure, incarcerating millions,", "paragraph_id": "para_2121" }, { "text": "separating families, and disrupting communities.” Barbosa da Cunha,", "paragraph_id": "para_2122" }, { "text": "175 F.4th at 93. It concluded that Congress cannot achieve such a", "paragraph_id": "para_2123" }, { "text": "policy “in such an indirect and ambiguous way.” Id. But “[i]magine", "paragraph_id": "para_2124" }, { "text": "what future courts can do with that judge-empowering principle:", "paragraph_id": "para_2125" }, { "text": "Whatever has improbably broad, deeply serious, and apparently", "paragraph_id": "para_2126" }, { "text": "unnecessary consequences [must be] ambiguous!” Bond, 572 U.S. at 870", "paragraph_id": "para_2127" }, { "text": "(Scalia, J., concurring in the judgment). In my view, “policy concerns", "paragraph_id": "para_2128" }, { "text": "cannot trump the best interpretation of the statutory text.” Patel v.", "paragraph_id": "para_2129" }, { "text": "Garland, 596 U.S. 328, 346 (2022).", "paragraph_id": "para_2130" }, { "text": "I would rehear this case en banc to give effect to the deeming", "paragraph_id": "para_2131" }, { "text": "provision throughout the INA. “After all, only the words on the page", "paragraph_id": "para_2132" }, { "text": "constitute the law adopted by Congress and approved by the", "paragraph_id": "para_2133" }, { "text": "62", "paragraph_id": "para_2134" }, { "text": "President.” Bostock, 590 U.S. at 654. The decision of the panel to", "paragraph_id": "para_2135" }, { "text": "replace the deeming provision with its own literalistic definitions", "paragraph_id": "para_2136" }, { "text": "effectively amends the statute “outside the legislative process", "paragraph_id": "para_2137" }, { "text": "reserved for the people’s representatives.” Id. at 655. And I would", "paragraph_id": "para_2138" }, { "text": "rehear the case en banc for the additional reason that the panel opinion", "paragraph_id": "para_2139" }, { "text": "“broaden[s] the scope of habeas relief beyond recognition” by", "paragraph_id": "para_2140" }, { "text": "entertaining a request for injunctive relief against the government as", "paragraph_id": "para_2141" }, { "text": "if it were relief traditionally available in habeas. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. at", "paragraph_id": "para_2142" }, { "text": "85 (Scalia, J., concurring). Because the court declines to correct these", "paragraph_id": "para_2143" }, { "text": "errors, I dissent.", "paragraph_id": "para_2144" }, { "text": "Barbosa da Cunha v. Freden", "paragraph_id": "para_2145" }, { "text": "No. 25-3141", "paragraph_id": "para_2146" }, { "text": "Separate Statement of José A. Cabranes, Senior Circuit Judge", "paragraph_id": "para_2147" }, { "text": "As a senior judge, I am not authorized to vote on motions for en banc review. That said, I", "paragraph_id": "para_2148" }, { "text": "take this opportunity to express my solidarity with the views expressed by my colleagues, Judges", "paragraph_id": "para_2149" }, { "text": "Bianco and Nathan, in their opinion concurring in the denial of rehearing en banc.", "paragraph_id": "para_2150" } ], "word_count": 21411, "cites": [ "591 U.S. 103", "544 U.S. 74", "553 U.S. 674", "604 U.S. 670", "391 U.S. 54", "553 U.S. 723", "365 U.S. 146", "411 U.S. 475", "481 U.S. 770", "340 U.S. 206", "417 U.S.\n156", "572 U.S. 844", "530 U.S. 914", "605 U.S. 38", "279 U.S.\n398", "593 U.S.\n409", "603 U.S. 369", "583 U.S. 281", "348 U.S. 528", "107 U.S. 147", "590 U.S. 222", "586 U.S. 334", "499 U.S. 83", "590 U.S. 83", "607 U.S. 552", "598 U.S. 264", "575 U.S. 320", "590 U.S. 644", "599 U.S. 670", "597 U.S. 785", "285 U.S. 22", "538 U.S. 510", "417 U.S. 402", "187 U.S. 540", "533 U.S. 678", "342 U.S. 524", "507\nU.S. 292", "291 U.S. 442", "378 U.S. 546", "404 U.S. 249", "582 U.S. 120", "441\nU.S. 520", "541 U.S. 637", "540 U.S. 749", "506 U.S. 390", "85 U.S. 163", "301 U.S. 540", "265 U.S. 86", "249 U.S. 367", "245\nU.S. 308", "559 U.S. 700", "567\nU.S. 387", "512 U.S. 452", "590\nU.S. 371", "596 U.S. 328", "175\nF.4th 61", "85 F.3d 919", "533 F.2d 1309", "479\nF.2d 1005", "175 F.4th 61", "166 F.4th 494", "170 F.4th 1128", "175 F.4th 713", "175 F.4th 1258", "180 F.4th 1226", "183 F.4th 1160", "183 F.4th\n909", "892 F.3d 121", "692 F.3d 1168", "576 F.3d 752", "139 F.4th 189", "175 F.4th 828", "990 F.3d\n17", "742 F.3d 1013", "43 F.2d 917", "698\nF.3d 877", "865 F.3d 123", "517 F.3d 595", "183 F.4th 103", "156 F.4th 171", "103 F.4th 133", "978 F.3d 842", "146 F.4th 301", "972 F.3d 310", "93 F.4th 187", "774 F.3d 467", "830 F.3d 922", "81 F.4th 37", "877 F.3d 76", "79 F.4th 206", "378 F.3d 210", "26 F.4th 860", "11 F.4th 1133", "863 F.3d 784" ], "cited_by": [], "sha256": "2236258a4112ec4c15ef53db5ec7fb759b3c52c3f241b6eb6c20ba686c837ffb", "source_url": "https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/OPN/25-3141_complete en banc_opn.pdf", "fetched_at": "2026-10-01T23:57:03.018+00:00", "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/ai/judgments/us/ca2-25-3141-2026-09-25", "risk_graph": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca2-25-3141-2026-09-25", "relations_graph": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca2-25-3141-2026-09-25", "changes": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/changes", "agent": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:ca2-25-3141-2026-09-25", "verification": { "stored_sha256": "2236258a4112ec4c15ef53db5ec7fb759b3c52c3f241b6eb6c20ba686c837ffb", "recomputed_sha256": "2236258a4112ec4c15ef53db5ec7fb759b3c52c3f241b6eb6c20ba686c837ffb", "intact": true, "checked_at": "2026-10-05T11:52:41.480Z" } }, "hash": "sha256:19af8c5f92cf38bb2eda38ad7be8b9ddf009f385c748fbc134008ab5eded483b", "version": "legal-2026-10-05", "expires": "2026-10-06T00:00:00.000Z", "dependency": { "index_version": "legal-2026-10-05+legal-2026-10-05+2026-10-05T10:44:45", "content_hash": "sha256:19af8c5f92cf38bb2eda38ad7be8b9ddf009f385c748fbc134008ab5eded483b", "revalidate_after": "2026-10-05T12:52:41.663Z", "max_copy_age_seconds": 3600, "policy": "revalidate-required; attribution-preferred", "changelog": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/dependency", "verify": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/verify", "stale_copy_invalid": true }, "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca2-25-3141-2026-09-25", "disclaimer": "Source reference with official identifier. Not legal advice and not a compliance decision.", "content_notice": { "legal_advice": false, "nature": "Source register. Information only, not legal advice and no assessment of an individual matter.", "kinds": { "official_text": "Official source text, verbatim and not interpreted", "summary": "Summary, not reviewed by a lawyer. Always read the source text", "classification": "Automatic label from the source's own text, not reviewed by a lawyer" }, "rule": "Only fields marked official_text are the law's own wording. Everything else points to it.", "report_error": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/corrections", "ai_act_declaration": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/ai-act-declaration" }, "usageInfo": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/citering" }