Habeas corpus: The Illegal Immigration Reform & Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA); Whether a noncitizen detained within the interior of the U.S. who never affirmatively applied for admission is subject to 8 USC § 1225(b)(2)(A)’s mandatory detention scheme or § 1226’s permissive detention scheme; Jennings v Rodriguez; Matter of Yajure Hurtado (BIA); Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause claims; Reno v Flores; Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA); Immigration judge (IJ)

[This appeal was from the ED-MI & WD-MI.] In a consolidated appeal, the court joined other circuits by holding that noncitizens detained within the U.S. interior who never affirmatively applied for admission are not subject to § 1225(b)(2)(A)’s mandatory detention scheme but are instead subject to § 1226’s permissive detention scheme. Petitioners, who are from Mexico, El Salvador, Venezuela, Nicaragua, and Guatemala, are noncitizens who have lived in the U.S. without lawful status for years and who were detained under § 1225(b)(2)(A). They sought writs of habeas corpus. They claimed that they were unlawfully seized under § 1225(b)(2)(A), which requires mandatory detention, when they should have been detained under “§ 1226, which permits detention or release on bond or probation.” They also argued that they were improperly denied bond hearings in violation of their due process rights. Both of the district courts granted their petitions, agreeing that § 1226(a) governed their detention and thus, they should have had a bond hearing before an IJ. In all but one case the district courts also found that petitioners’ Fifth Amendment due process rights were violated when they were not provided bond hearings. All petitioners have been released. The issue on appeal was whether, pending completion of removal proceedings, “a noncitizen detained within the interior of the United States who never affirmatively applied for admission is subject to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A)’s mandatory detention scheme or to § 1226’s permissive detention scheme.” The court considered “what it means for a noncitizen to be ‘seeking’ admission in § 1225(b)(2)(A).” It concluded that noncitizens, like petitioners, “who did not attempt lawful entry into the United States and are actively avoiding being inspected for lawful entry, are not ‘seeking admission’ and are thus not subject to § 1225(b)(2)(A)’s mandatory detention scheme.” Accordingly, the court joined the Second and Eleventh Circuits “in holding that § 1225(b)(2)(A) does not apply to noncitizens like Petitioners.” As to their due process claim, it “‘is well established that the Fifth Amendment entitles aliens to due process of law in [removal] proceedings.’” The court found “no error in the district courts’ conclusions that Petitioners were due individualized bond hearings in light of the significant time they have spent within the interior of the United States.” Affirmed.