Soto v. Unknown Party et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Juan De Dios Armenta Soto,
Petitioner,
v.
Kristi Noem, et al.,
Respondents.
No. CV-25-04178-PHX-MTL (MTM)
ORDER
Petitioner filed an Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under § 2241
challenging his immigration detention.1 (Doc. 11.) Petitioner also filed an Emergency
Motion for Preliminary Injunction. (Doc. 2.) The Court ordered expedited briefing of the
Petition and Motion for Preliminary Injunction. (Doc. 7.) The Amended Petition and
Motion are fully briefed. (Docs. 16-17.) For the reasons that follow, the Amended Petition
is granted, and Respondents must either release Petitioner from custody or provide a bond
hearing within ten days.
I. Background
Petitioner was born in Mexico in 1964. (Doc. 16, Ex. A, Michie Decl. ¶ 3),
Following several voluntary removals from the United States, Petitioner reentered the
United States in 2008. (Id. ¶¶ 4-7; Doc. 11 ¶ 43.) He was encountered by Border Patrol
on August 5, 2019, taken into custody, and issued a Notice to Appear. (Id. ¶ 44.) On
August 22, 2019, Petitioner was released from immigration custody on a $5,000 bond. (Id.)
1 Petitioner’s Amended Petition is substantively identical to his original Petition except that
it names two previously unidentified John Doe Respondents.
Case 2:25-cv-04178-MTL--MTM Document 19 Filed 11/26/25 Page 1 of 5

- 2 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
His removal proceedings were ultimately dismissed due to issuance of Military Parole in
Place. (Id.) Immigrations and Customs Enforcement encountered Petitioner and arrested
him on September 19, 2025. (Id. ¶ 47.) ICE issued a Notice to Appear charging Petitioner
with inadmissibility under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i) and 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(7)(A)(i)(I).
(Id. ¶ 48.)
Petitioner requested custody redetermination, which was denied on November 4,
2025. (Id. ¶ 50.) The Immigration Judge denied the request on the basis that he lacked
jurisdiction to grant Petitioner bond because the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
classified him as being detained under § 1225(b)(2)(A) and therefore subject to mandatory
detention. (See id.) The Immigration Judge’s ruling follows a recent Board of Immigration
Appeals decision in In Re Hurtado, 29 I&N 216 (B.I.A. 2025). Under In Re Hurtado,
noncitizens present without admission are now subject to mandatory detention under 8
U.S.C. § 1225(b), rather than discretionary detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), because,
under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(a)(1), they are now deemed “applicant[s] for admission.”
Petitioner alleges his detention violates his due process rights and 8 U.S.C.
§ 1225(b)(2)(A), which does not apply to all individuals residing in the United States who
entered the country without being admitted. Petitioner further argues the Immigration
Judge’s bond decision violates 8 C.F.R. §§ 1236.1(d)(1) and 1003.19. He seeks a bond
hearing or release and an order declaring no statute or regulation prohibits an immigration
judge from holding a custody redetermination hearing for Petitioner and that his detention
is authorized under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a).
II. Analysis—Interpretation of 8 U.S.C. § 1225 and 8 U.S.C. § 1226
Respondents state they “are aware of a prior decision in this District rejecting
Respondents’ position, see Echevarria v. Bondi, et al., No. 2:25-cv-03252-PHX-DWL,
2025 WL 2821282 (D. Ariz. Oct. 3, 2025), but respectfully maintain that Petitioner falls
within the definition of an ‘arriving alien’ warranting mandatory detention as the removal
process unfolds. Respondents also respectfully maintain that an alien is an ‘applicant for
admission’ until an immigration official has inspected that person and determined that he
Case 2:25-cv-04178-MTL--MTM Document 19 Filed 11/26/25 Page 2 of 5

- 3 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
or she is admissible into the United States.” (Doc. 16 at 8.)
Among other things, Respondents contend that Echevarria did not “consider other
pieces of statutory context.” (Id.) The Court respectfully disagrees, as Echevarria contains
an extensive discussion of the statutory context. Echevarria, 2025 WL 2821282 at *5
(“Although [Respondents’] approach has surface appeal, the Court perceives at least two
problems with it: first, it ignores some of the additional requirements imposed by
§ 1225(b)(2)(A); and second, it fails to account for the broader statutory scheme,
particularly in light of how that broader scheme has been interpreted by the Supreme
Court.”); id. at *7 (“Putting aside these textual problems with Respondents’ position,
Respondents’ narrow focus on § 1225(a)(1) also ignores the complexities of interpreting
the INA, a dense statute . . . which must be interpreted against the backdrop of our
constitutional principles, administrative law, and international treaty obligations. Divining
its meaning is ordinarily not for the faint of heart. To that end, in determining whether
Congress has specifically addressed the question at issue, the court should not confine itself
to examining a particular statutory provision in isolation. Rather, it must place the
provision in context, interpreting the statute to create a symmetrical and coherent
regulatory scheme.”) (cleaned up). Nothing in Respondents’ brief persuades the Court that
this analysis was mistaken.
The Court is aware of several decisions adopting Respondents’ argument. Valencia
v. Chestnut, 2025 WL 3205133 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 17, 2025); Alonzo v. Noem, 2025 WL
3208284 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 17, 2025); Mejia Olalde v. Noem, 2025 WL 3131942 (E.D. Mo.
Nov. 10, 2025); Sandoval v. Acuna, 2025 WL 3048926 (W.D. La. Oct. 31, 2025); Rojas v.
Olson, 2025 WL 3033967 (E.D. Wisc. Oct. 30, 2025); Garibay-Robledo v. Noem, No.
1:25-CV-177-H, Doc. 9 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 24, 2025); Vargas Lopez v. Trump, 2025 WL
2780351 (D. Neb. Sept. 30, 2025), Chavez v. Noem, 2025 WL 2730228 (S.D. Cal. Sept.
24, 2025); Pipa-Aquise v. Bondi, No. 25-1094, 2025 WL 2490657 (E.D. Va. Aug. 5, 2025);
Pena v. Hyde, No. 25-11983, 2025 WL 2108913 (D. Mass. July 28, 2025). But it is
unsurprising that judges across the country are not in full agreement on how this issue
Case 2:25-cv-04178-MTL--MTM Document 19 Filed 11/26/25 Page 3 of 5

- 4 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
should be resolved. It is also fair to note that Respondents’ view represents the minority
position—in the weeks since Judge Lanza considered the issue in Echevarria, dozens of
other courts have reached the same conclusion. See, e.g., Quinapanta v. Bondi, 2025 WL
3157867, *6 (W.D. Wisc. Nov. 12, 2025) (“[M]ore than 45 district courts have now
rejected similar arguments made by respondents here and ordered bond hearings for
noncitizens who, like petitioner, were apprehended within the United States years after
entering without admission or inspection unless implicated by any criminal activity
covered by § 1226(c). These decisions, along with a growing number of others now
including this court have concluded that the statutory text, the statute’s history,
Congressional intent, and § 1226(a)’s application for the past three decades support its
application to noncitizens in petitioner’s position.”) (cleaned up). Having reviewed the
recent decisions adopting the minority view, the Court agrees with the conclusion reached
by Judge Lanza in Echevarria. For these reasons, the Petition is granted as to Counts One
and Three of the Amended Petition, and Petitioner must receive a bond hearing under 8
U.S.C. § 1226(a).2
…
…
…
…
…
…
…
…
…
…
…
…
2 Because the Court grants relief as to Counts One and Three, it will deny the remainder of
the Petition as moot.
Case 2:25-cv-04178-MTL--MTM Document 19 Filed 11/26/25 Page 4 of 5

- 5 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
IT IS ORDERED:
1. Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) is granted as to
Petitioner’s Fifth Claim for Relief. The remainder of the Petition is denied
as moot.
2. Respondents must provide Petitioner a bond redetermination hearing within
ten days or release him from custody under the same conditions that existed
before his detention.
3. Respondents must provide a notice of compliance within three days of
releasing Petitioner or providing him a bond hearing.
4. All remaining motions are denied as moot.
5. The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment in Petitioner’s favor and close this
case.
Dated this 26th day of November, 2025.
Case 2:25-cv-04178-MTL--MTM Document 19 Filed 11/26/25 Page 5 of 5