UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

: EVA ALONDRA ALVAREZ COETO, : : Civil Action No. 25-17789 (BRM) Petitioner, : : v. : MEMORANDUM AND ORDER : LUIS SOTO, et al., : : Respondents. : :

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Petitioner Eva Alondra Alvarez Coeto’s (“Petitioner”) Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”) pursuant to

, challenging her detention by immigration authorities without an individualized bond hearing (ECF No. 1) and Respondents’ letter response (ECF No. 4). Petitioner, a citizen of Mexico, who has been living in the United States since 2002. (ECF No. 1 at 12.) Years after her entry into the United States, on September 9, 2025, Petitioner was arrested by Immigration Customs and Enforcement (“ICE”) agents pursuant to an immigration detainer. (Id. at 13.) Petitioner has been detained at Delaney Hall, in Newark, New Jersey since her arrest. (Id.) Following Petitioner’s arrest and detention by ICE, she has not been afforded an individualized bond hearing because she is being held in mandatory detention under

(b)(2). (Id.) On November 21, 2025, the Court ordered Respondents to file an answer and enjoined Respondents from transferring Petitioner from the New Jersey detention facility. (ECF No. 2.) Respondents filed a letter response on December 5, 2025. (ECF No. 4.) Among other arguments, the Petition contends Petitioner is unlawfully detained under

(b)(2) without a bond hearing. (ECF No. 1.) Respondents assert the same position they have in many other similar cases in this District, including the position they took before this Court in the recent matter Sandhu v. Tsoukaris, No. 25-14607 (BRM). In Sandhu, Respondents

argued DHS has implemented a new policy interpreting INA § 235,

(b)(2)(A), to require mandatory detention of noncitizens who entered the United States without admission or inspection and to render them ineligible for release on bond, a position that the Board of Immigration Appeals recently adopted in Matter of Yajure Hurtado,

(BIA 2025). In Sandhu, this Court rejected Hurtado’s interpretation of

(b)(2). Sandhu, No. 25-14607 (ECF Nos. 7, 8). In a factually similar situation, the Court held that Sandhu was unlawfully held in mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2) and need to be treated as being held the discretionary authority of

(a). In Sandhu, this Court explained the following: The issue of whether Petitioner is properly detained under § 1225(b) or § 1226(a) is similar to that of many cases in this District and around the country. “The line historically drawn between these two sections . . . is that section 1225 governs detention of non-citizens ‘seeking admission into the country,’ whereas section 1226 governs detention of non-citizens ‘already in the country.’” Martinez v. Hyde, No. 25-cv-11613,

, at *8 (D. Mass. July 24, 2025) (citing Jennings, 583 U.S. at 288–89); see also Lopez-Campos v. Raycraft,

, at *8 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 29, 2025) (“There can be no genuine dispute that Section 1226(a), and not Section 1225(b)(2)(A), applies to a noncitizen who has resided in this country for over twenty-six years and was already within the United States when apprehended and arrested during a traffic stop, and not upon arrival at the border.”).

. . .

For nearly 30 years, § 1225 has applied to noncitizens who are either seeking entry to the United States or have a close nexus to the border, and § 1226 has applied to those aliens arrested within the interior of the United States. The Supreme Court in Jennings explicitly adopted this distinction, describing § 1225 as the detention statute for noncitizens affirmatively “seeking admission” into the United States, and § 1226 as the detention statute for noncitizens who are “already in the country.” [Jennings v. Rodriguez,

(2018)]. And although the Jennings Court characterizes § 1225(b)(2) as the “catchall” detention provision for noncitizens who are “seeking admission,” it identifies § 1226(a) as the “default rule” for the arrest, detention, and release of non-criminal aliens who are already present in the United States. Id. at 303.

The vast majority of courts confronting this precise issue have rejected Respondents’ interpretation, as well as the BIA’s interpretation in Hurtado, as contradictory to the plain text of § 1225.[1] See, e.g., Soto [v. Soto, et al., No. 25-cv-16200,

, at *7 (D.N.J. Oct. 22, 2025)] (finding that § 1225(b)(2)(A) applies only to noncitizens who are actively, i.e., affirmatively, “seeking admission” to the United States and not petitioners who have been residing in the United States); Belsai D.S. v. Bondi, No. 25- cv-3682,

at * 6 (D. Minn. Oct. 1, 2025) (noting that “the government’s proposed interpretation of § 1225(b) [is] at odds with the context and structure of the provisions governing detention of noncitizens who are arriving at the border and those who are already present in the country”); Zumba,

at * 3 (noting that “up until July 8 the predominant form of detention authority for petitioner and other noncitizens arrested in the interior of the United States was § 1226(a)”); Salazar v. Dedos, No. 25-cv-835,

(D.N.M. Sept. 17, 2025); Lepe v. Andrews, No. 25-cv-01163,

(E.D. Cal. Sept. 23, 2025); Roman v. Noem, No. 25-cv-01684,

(D. Nev. Sept. 23, 2025); Giron Reyes v. Lyons, No. 25-cv-4048,

(N.D. Iowa Sept. 23, 2025); Singh v. Lewis, No. 25-cv-0096,

(W.D. Ky. Sept. 22, 2025); Barrera v. Tindall, No. 25-cv-541,

(W.D. Ky. Sept. 19, 2025); Hasan v. Crawford, No. 25-cv-1408,

(E.D. Va. Sept. 19, 2025); Vazquez v. Feeley, No. 2:25– cv–01542,

(D. Nev. Sept. 17, 2025); [collecting additional cases].

Sandhu, No. 25-14607 (ECF No. 7 at 7–11).

1 This Court is not required to defer to the BI’s interpretation of § 1225 because “[w]hen the meaning of a statute [is] at issue, the judicial role [is] to ‘interpret the act of Congress, in order to ascertain the rights of the parties.’” Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo,

(2024) (quoting Decatur v. Paulding,

(1840)). Based on this Court’s statutory interpretation in Sandhu, No. 25-14607, the Court finds the facts asserted in the Petition establish Petitioner’s detention is authorized only by

(a), and not § 1225(b)(2). Accordingly, and for good cause appearing,

IT IS on this 10th day of December 2025, ORDERED the Petition (ECF No. 1) is GRANTED; and it is further ORDERED Respondents shall treat Petitioner as detained under

(a); and it is further ORDERED that, as soon as practicable but no later than 7 days from the date of this Order, Respondents shall provide Petitioner with an individualized bond hearing in accordance with

(a) before an immigration judge who shall assess whether she presents a flight risk or a danger to the community; and it is further ORDERED within 3 business days of that bond hearing, Respondents shall file a written notice of the outcome of that proceeding with the Court; and it is finally

ORDERED the Clerk of Court shall serve a copy of this Order and the accompanying Opinion upon the parties electronically. /s/ Brian R. Martinotti HON. BRIAN R. MARTINOTTI UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE