Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
SANJAY KUMAR,
Petitioner,
v.
MICHAEL T. ROSE, et al.,
Respondents.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Civil No. 1:26-CV-00303
Judge Jennifer P. Wilson
MEMORANDUM
Before the court is a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241 filed by Petitioner Sanjay Kumar (“Kumar”). (Doc. 1.) Kumar argues that
he is being wrongfully detained without a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)
and, instead, should be immediately released or provided an opportunity for a bond
hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226. For the reasons that follow, the court will grant
Kumar’s petition and order him released from custody.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL H ISTORY
Kumar is a native and citizen of India. (Doc. 1, ¶ 17; Doc. 5-3, 1.) 1 He
entered the United States on or about November 14, 2023, was encountered by
United States Border Patrol agents soon thereafter and arrested. (Doc. 5, p. 4 &
n.2.) On November 16, 2023, United States Border Patrol issued and served
Kumar with a Notice to Appear in immigration court for removal proceedings
1 For ease of reference, the court uses the page numbers from the CM/ECF header.
Case 1:26-cv-00303-JPW Document 7 Filed 03/04/26 Page 1 of 12

2
under the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), §§ 212(a)(6)(A)(i), because
he was in the United States without being admitted or paroled. (Doc. 1-2, p. 2.)
Kumar was released on his own recognizance pending his immigration
proceedings on November 16, 2023. (Doc. 1-3, p. 2.)
Kumar applied for asylum in the United States, which remains pending.
(Doc. 1, ¶ 3.) On December 20, 2025, Kumar was arrested by Immigration and
Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) while he was at work in Williamsport,
Pennsylvania. (Id. ¶ 4; Doc. 5-4, p. 2.) Kumar, who is being held at the Clinton
County Correctional Facility, subsequently requested bond, which was denied on
January 27, 2026. (Doc. 5-5, p. 1.) An immigration judge found that the
immigration court had no jurisdiction to rule on Kumar’s change in custody
request. (Id.) Kumar reserved the right to appeal this decision. (Id. at 2.)
Kumar has been detained since then at Clinton County Correctional Facility.
(Doc. 1, ¶ 17.) He had an individual immigration hearing scheduled before an
immigration judge on February 23, 2026. (Doc. 5-6, p. 1.)
On February 6, 2026, Kumar filed the instant petition requesting release
from detention or a bond hearing against Michael T. Rose, Acting Filed Office
Director of Enforcement and Removal Operations, Philadelphia Field Office, ICE;
and Angela Hoover, Warden of Clinton County Correctional Facility (collectively,
Case 1:26-cv-00303-JPW Document 7 Filed 03/04/26 Page 2 of 12

3
“Respondents”).2 (Doc. 1.) Respondents filed a response on February 24, 2026,
and Kumar filed a traverse on March 3, 2026. (Docs. 5, 6.) Thus, this petition is
ripe for review.
S TANDARD OF REVIEW AND J URISDICTION 3
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3), a district court may consider a writ of
habeas corpus when an immigration detainee is “in custody in violation of the
Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” Claims related to an
immigration detainee’s request for release from confinement must be brought as a
habeas petition as these “claims fall within the ‘core’ of the writ of habeas corpus.”
Trump v. J.G.G., 604 U.S. 670, 672 (2025) (quoting Nance v. Ward, 597 U.S. 167
(2022)). Jurisdiction for “core habeas petitions . . . lies in only one district: the
district of confinement.” Id. (quoting Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 443
(2004)) (internal quotations omitted). Kumar is detained at the Clinton County
Correctional Facility, which is within the Middle District of Pennsylvania. See 28
U.S.C. § 118(b).
2 Respondents, in a footnote, submit that the only proper respondent is Angela Hoover because
she is the Warden of Clinton County Correctional Facility. (Doc. 5, p. 1 n.1.) In this case,
consistent with Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 447 (2004), Petitioner has named the Warden
as a respondent. Padilla, 542 U.S. at 447 (“Whenever a § 2241 habeas petitioner seeks to
challenge his present physical custody within the United States, he should name his warden as
respondent.”) The court will not address an argument requesting dismissal of other Respondents
when only raised in a footnote.
3 Unlike prior habeas petitions before this court that presented similar issues, Respondents do not
argue that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction in this case, thus, the court will not address
that issue here. (See Doc. 5.)
Case 1:26-cv-00303-JPW Document 7 Filed 03/04/26 Page 3 of 12

4
DISCUSSION
Kumar argues that he was improperly detained under Section 1225(b) of the
INA, which relates to applicants for admission. (Doc. 1; Doc. 6, pp. 6–18.)
Kumar submits that he should have been detained, if at all, pursuant to 8 U.S.C.
§ 1226(a) and provided a bond hearing because he is not an applicant for
admission. (Doc. 1; Doc. 6, pp. 18–19.) Kumar requests the following forms of
relief: an order that Kumar shall not be transferred outside of this district while his
habeas proceeding is pending; the court grant his habeas petition requiring
Respondents to release Kumar immediately or, alternatively, provide Kumar with a
bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a); and declare Kumar’s detention unlawful.
(Doc. 1, p. 16–17.)
Respondents agree that Kumar is detained pursuant to Section
1225(b)(2)(A). (Doc. 5, p. 2.) They assert that Kumar falls within the statutory
definition of “applicant for admission,” he is properly detained under Section
1225(b)(2), and Section 1226(a) is inapplicable to him. (Id. at 15–41.)
Respondents submit that the plain language of Section 1225(b)(2) requires
detention of applicants for admission and that the section’s reference to noncitizens
“seeking admission” does not narrow the scope of Section 1225(b)(2). (Id. at 15–
28.) They further argue that their interpretation of Section 1225(b)(2)(A) does not
make Section 1226(a)’s discretionary detention authority superfluous and Jennings
Case 1:26-cv-00303-JPW Document 7 Filed 03/04/26 Page 4 of 12

5
does not undermine Respondents’ interpretation. (Id. at 28–36.) Respondents also
assert that Kumar’s temporary detention does not violate due process. (Id. at 36–
40.) Alternatively, if the court wishes to grant Kumar’s petition, Respondents
request that the court order a bond hearing rather than releasing Kumar. (Id. at 40–
41.)
Section 1225 of the INA is titled “Inspection by immigration officers;
expedited removal of inadmissible arriving aliens; referral for hearing.” 8 U.S.C.
§ 1225. It defines “applicant for admission” as “[a]n alien present in the United
States who has not been admitted or who arrives in the United States . . . .” Id.
§ 1225(a)(1). Section 1225(b)(2)(A) provides:
Subject to subparagraphs (B) and (C), in the case of an alien who is an
applicant 	for 	admission, 	if 	the 	examining 	immigration 	officer
determines that an alien seeking admission is not clearly and beyond a
doubt entitled to be admitted, the alien shall be detained for a
proceeding under section 1229a of this title.
Noncitizens subject to this mandatory detention may only be released while their
removal proceedings are pending “for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant
public benefit.” Jennings, 583 U.S. at 288. The BIA recently decided Matter of
Yajure Hurtado, 29 I. & N. Dec. 2016 (Sept. 5, 2025), wherein the BIA held that
noncitizens who enter the United States without admission are subject to
mandatory detention under Section 1225(b)(2)(A), and thus, immigration judges
lack the authority to provide a bond hearing.
Case 1:26-cv-00303-JPW Document 7 Filed 03/04/26 Page 5 of 12

6
Conversely, 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) provides, in relevant part:
(a) Arrest, detention, and release
On a warrant issued by the Attorney General, an alien may be arrested
and detained pending a decision on whether the alien is to be removed
from the United States. 	Except as provided in subsection (c) and
pending such decision, the Attorney General—
(1) may continue to detain the arrested alien; and
(2) may release the alien on—
(a) bond of at least $1,500 with security approved by, and
containing 	conditions 	prescribed 	by, 	the 	Attorney
General; or
(b) conditional parole; but
(3) may not provide the alien with work authorization (including
an ‘employment authorized’ endorsement or other appropriate
work permit), unless the alien is lawfully admitted for permanent
residence 	or 	otherwise 	would 	(without 	regard 	to 	removal
proceedings) be provided such authorization.
The parties agree that Kumar is detained pursuant to Section 1225(b)(2)(A) and
neither party alleges that Kumar is subject to Section 1226(c).4 (See Docs. 1, 5, 6.)
Federal district courts across the country and within this district have,
overwhelmingly, rejected Respondents’ position regarding the applicability of
Section 1225(b)(2)(A) to detainees like Kumar, a noncitizen who previously
entered and had been living in the United States prior to his detention.5 See, e.g.,
Hernandez v. Kunes, No. 1:25-cv-1847, 2026 WL 411726 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 13,
4 Section 1226(c) requires detention of noncitizens who are inadmissible or deportable because
they have committed a criminal offense identified in this section. 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c).
5 The court acknowledges that there are some district courts, as well as the Fifth Circuit Court of
Appeals, who have agreed with Respondents’ interpretation of Section 1225. (See Doc. 5, p. 3.)
Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, No. 25-20496, --- F.4th ----, 2026 WL 323330 (5th Cir. Feb. 6,
2026). However, none of these decisions are binding on this court.
Case 1:26-cv-00303-JPW Document 7 Filed 03/04/26 Page 6 of 12

7
2026) (Wilson, J.) (holding Section 1225(b) was inapplicable to petitioner);
Santana-Rivas v. Warden of Clinton Cnty. Corr. Facility, No. 3:25-cv-1896, 2025
WL 3513152 (M.D. Pa. Dec. 8, 2025) (Wilson, J.) (adopting report and
recommendation finding that Section 1225 was inapplicable to petitioner); Patel v.
O’Neil, No. 3:25-cv-2185, 2025 WL 3516865, at *4 n.7 (M.D. Pa. Dec. 8, 2025)
(collecting cases within the Third Circuit as of December 8, 2025); Quispe v. Rose,
3:25-cv-2276, 2025 WL 3537279 (M.D. Pa. Dec. 10, 2025) (holding that petitioner
was improperly detained under Section 1225(b)(2)(A)); Patel v. O’Neill, 3:25-cv-
2289, 2026 WL 323121 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 6, 2026) (same). “The vast majority of
courts confronting this precise issue have rejected the Government’s interpretation,
and the BIA’s interpretation of Hurtado, as contradictory to the plain text of
§ 1225.” Demirel, 2025 WL 3218243 (citing Ayala Amaya v. Bondi, No. 25-
16429, 2025 WL 3033880, at *2 (D.N.J. Oct. 30, 2025) (collecting cases)).
The court is persuaded by and agrees with the majority of federal district
courts that have ruled on this issue to date in rejecting Respondents’ interpretation
of Section 1225(b)(2)(A). Kumar’s detention under Section 1225(b)(2)(A) is
unlawful because Section 1225(b)(2)(A) “applies only to noncitizens who are
actively, i.e., affirmatively, ‘seeking admission’ to the United States.” Bethancourt
Soto v. Soto, No. 25-cv-16200, --- F. Supp. 3d ----, 2025 WL 2976572, at *7
(D.N.J. Oct. 22, 2025). Thus, this section simply does not apply to someone like
Case 1:26-cv-00303-JPW Document 7 Filed 03/04/26 Page 7 of 12

8
Kumar, who has been residing in the United States for over two years. Id.
(collecting cases adopting the same conclusion).
In reaching this conclusion, the court holds that Respondents’ interpretation
of “seeking admission” violates the rule against surplusage and contradicts the
plain meaning of the statutory text. Bethancourt Soto, 2025 WL 2976572 at *5
(finding that respondents’ interpretation “violates the rule against surplusage and
negates the plain meaning of the text.”); see also Patel, 2025 WL 3516865, at *5
(citing Centeno Ibarra v. Warden of Fed. Det. Ctr. Phila., No. 25-cv-6312, 2025
WL 3294726, at *5 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 25, 2025)) (same). If Section 1225(b)(2)(A)
applied to every “applicant for admission,” the phrase “seeking admission” would
become unnecessary and surplusage. 6 Bethancourt Soto, 2025 WL 2976572 at *6
(citations omitted); see also United States ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Res.,
Inc., 599 U.S. 419 (2023) (explaining that “every clause and word of a statute
should have meaning” and “no clause, sentence, or word shall be superfluous,
void, or insignificant”). Further, “seeking admission” connotes “some affirmative,
6 Bethancourt Soto, 2025 WL 2976572 at*6, provides a helpful example of why Respondents’
interpretation violates the rule against surplusage:
[R]emoving the words “seeking admission” from § 1225(b)(2)(A) would not alter its
meaning under Respondents’ theory: “[I]n the case of an alien who is an applicant for
admission, if the examining immigration officer determines that an alien seeking admission
is not clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted, the alien shall be detained[.]”
That result is inconsistent with the principle that courts must interpret a statute to give
meaning to “every clause and word” that Congress chose to include. See Polansky, 599
U.S. at 432, 143 S.Ct. 1720 (quotation marks omitted).
Case 1:26-cv-00303-JPW Document 7 Filed 03/04/26 Page 8 of 12

9
present-tense action” such that it “requires an act currently underway not a static
condition.” Id. at *5 (citations omitted). Thus, Respondents’ argument that
Section 1225(b)(2)(A) does not require any “affirmative act” is contrary to the
plain meaning of the words “seeking admission.”7
Respondents’ interpretation also makes Section 1226(c)’s mandatory
detention provision superfluous and redundant. Centeno Ibarra, 2025 WL
3294726 at *6 (“Under the government’s interpretation, § 1225 would require such
mandatory detention regardless of criminal charges or convictions. If this was the
case, Congress would have no need to create additional requirements for
mandatory detention.”).
In sum, Kumar is not currently “seeking admission” to the United States.
That was his status in November 2023. At that time, an immigration official made
the decision to release him in the United States on his own recognizance.
7 Again, the examples provided by the court in Bethancourt Soto, 2025 WL 2976572 at *6, are
illustrative of why Respondents’ argument fails:
For example, one could deem every person in the country a “potential homebuyer,” but
they are not “seeking to buy a home,” without taking some affirmative action towards that
goal. Nor is every “employable adult” in the country “applying for a job,” simply because
jobs exist. 	Or, as Judge Ho explained in Benitez, “someone who enters a movie theater
without purchasing a ticket and then proceeds to sit through the first few minutes of a film
would not ordinarily then be described as ‘seeking admission’ to the theater. Rather, that
person would be described as already present there.” Benitez, ––– F.Supp.3d at ––––, 2025
WL 2371588, at *7. Further, “[e]ven if that person, after being detected, offered to pay for
a ticket, one would not ordinarily describe them as ‘seeking admission’ ... at that point—
one would say that they had entered unlawfully but now seek a lawful means of remaining
there.” Id.
Case 1:26-cv-00303-JPW Document 7 Filed 03/04/26 Page 9 of 12

10
Therefore, Section 1225(b)(2)(A) does not apply to him as he is not currently
“seeking admission” to the United States.
Addressing Kumar’s constitutional claims, it is undisputed that “once an
alien enters the country, the legal circumstance changes, for the Due Process
Clause applies to all ‘persons’ within the United States, including aliens, whether
their presence here is lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent.” Zadvydas, 533
U.S. at 693 (citations omitted). Thus, the court must determine what process is due
to Kumar, who is currently subject to mandatory detention without a bond hearing,
by applying the balancing test in Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335 (1976).
Mathews requires the court to weigh three factors: (1) “the private interest that will
be affected by the official action;” (2) “the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such
interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional
or substitute procedural safeguards;” and (3) “the Government’s interest, including
the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional
or substitute procedural requirement would entail.” Id. at 335.
The first factor weighs heavily in Kumar’s favor because the “official
action” has deprived him of his physical liberty. See Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S.
507, 529 (2004) (“[T]he most elemental of liberty interests—the interest in being
free from physical detention by one’s own government.”). The second factor
similarly swings in Kumar’s favor because he “is presently and erroneously
Case 1:26-cv-00303-JPW Document 7 Filed 03/04/26 Page 10 of 12

11
detained under the mandatory detention provisions of § 1225, without an
opportunity for a bond hearing.” Bethancourt Soto, 2025 WL 2976572 at *8
(emphasis in original). As to the third factor, the court recognizes Respondents’
interest in detaining noncitizens to ensure “the appearance of aliens at future
immigration proceedings” and “preventing danger to the community.” Zadvydas,
533 U.S. at 690. Still, this factor weighs in favor of Kumar because Respondents
do not contend that he has a criminal record, that he poses a danger to the
community, or that he is a flight risk. Accordingly, the Mathews factors weigh in
Kumar’s favor and the court finds that his mandatory detention without a bond
hearing under Section 1225(b)(2)(A) violates his procedural due process rights.
See Bethencourt Soto, 2025 WL 2976572 at *8 (“Taken together, the Court finds
that the Mathews factors weigh decisively in Petitioner’s favor, and as such his
mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A) violates his procedural due process
rights.”) (citations omitted); Patel, 2025 WL 3516865 at *6 (holding same). Thus,
the court will grant Kumar’s petition and release him on his own recognizance as
the United States Border Patrol did in November 2023.
Case 1:26-cv-00303-JPW Document 7 Filed 03/04/26 Page 11 of 12

12
CONCLUSION
For these reasons, the court will grant Kumar’s petition for writ of habeas
corpus and order his immediate release. An appropriate order follows.
s/Jennifer P. Wilson
JENNIFER P. WILSON
United States District Judge
Middle District of Pennsylvania
Dated: March 4, 2026
Case 1:26-cv-00303-JPW Document 7 Filed 03/04/26 Page 12 of 12