Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
ALEXEL ALEXANDER SANCHEZ,
Petitioner ,
V.
JAMES BAUSCH, In his official
capacity as Acting Deputy Field Office
Director, Buffalo Field Office, U.S.
Immigration & Customs Enforcement;
PHILIP RHONEY, In his official
capacity as Acting Fie ld Office Director,
Buffalo Field Offic e, U.S. Immigration
& Customs Enforcement ;
TODD LYONS, In his official capacity
as Acting Director, U.S. Immigration
and Customs Enforcement;
PAMELA BONDI, In her official
capacity as U.S. Attorn ey General;
MARKWAYNE MULLIN , In her official
capacity as Secretary of Hom eland
Security ,
Responde nts.
26-CV-1851 (JLS)
DECISION AND ORDER
This Court ha s e xamined the Second Circuit's decision in da Cunha v. Freden ,
175 F. 4th 61 (2d Cir. 2026) . To the ext e nt the holding therein conflicts with this
Court's decisions in Riv era Castillo v. Rhoney , No . 25-CV-1065 (JLS), 2026 WL 775995
(W .D.N.Y. Mar. 19, 2026), and Ferreira Candido v. Bondi , No. 25-CV-867 (JLS), 2025
WL 3123696 (W .D.N.Y. Nov. 7, 2025) , this Court is bound to follow the Second
Case 1:26-cv-01851-JLS Document 6 Filed 10/08/26 Page 1 of 5

Circuit's da Cunha dictates. 1 The balance of this Court's analysis in River.a Castillo
and Ferreira Candido bears reference and is incorporated here.
As relevant here, in da Cunha, the Second Circuit ruled that:
1. 	"A noncitizen like [da Cunha] is unlawfully present, and thus an 'applicant
for admission,' but indisputably never sought or applied for lawful entry after
inspection and authorization, and is not doing so now. To the contrary, he
evaded immigration inspectors, snuck into the country, and today applies
only for non-admission forms of relief, including asylum and cancellation of
removal." da Cunha, 175 F.4th at 75-76.
2. 	"Here, although [da Cunha] is an applicant for admission under the
statutory definition because he is present in the country and has never been
admitted, it simply cannot be said that he is 'seeking admission,' as he is not
requesting lawful entry into the United States. By total contrast, [da
Cunha] entered the interior unlawfully twenty years ago and is now seeking
only relief from removal. Therefore, because Section 1225(b)(2)(A) applies
only to a noncitizen who is both an 'applicant for admission' and 'seeking
admission,' it does not apply to [da Cunha]." Id. at 74.
3. 	"Section 1225(b)(2)(A) does not apply to such noncitizens, who are present in
the United States after entering the country without inspection and
1 The Court notes that the Supreme Court granted certiorari in da Cunha on October
1, 2026. 	See Rhoney v. da Cunha, No. 25-3141 (U.S. Oct. 1, 2026).
2
Case 1:26-cv-01851-JLS Document 6 Filed 10/08/26 Page 2 of 5

admission, and who were not apprehended while entering the country or
shortly thereafter." Id. at 69.
4. 	"Together, Section 1225(b)(2) therefore applies only to (1) noncitizens who
are present and have not been admitted, and (2) are requesting (3) lawful
entry into the United States after inspection and authorization." Id. at 7 4.
5. 	"Instead, Section 1225(b)(2)(A) applies to those noncitizens who present
themselves at a port of entry for admission, or who cross the physical border
into the United States but are apprehended at the 'threshold of initial entry."'
Id. at 75 (quoting Dep't of Homeland Sec. v. Thuraissigiam, 591 U.S. 103,
107 (2020) (holding that a noncitizen "apprehended just 25 yards from the
border" had not effected an "entry"), and citing Leng May Ma v. Barber, 357
U.S. 185, 189 (1958) (treating noncitizens paroled into the country "as [if]
stopped at the boundary line")) (citation modified).
In da Cunha, the Second Circuit drew a distinction between aliens who "snuck
into" the country and "evaded" detection for years (ruling that a bond hearing is
required) and aliens who were encountered at or near the border (where no bond
hearing is required).2
2 Nevertheless, the Government's current position is to oppose bond hearings only in
cases where the petitioner was encountered at or near the border and released on
parole.
3
Case 1:26-cv-01851-JLS Document 6 Filed 10/08/26 Page 3 of 5

• "
Here, Petitioner is in the latter category. See Dkt. 4-3 (indicating that
Petitioner was "encountered by Border Patrol Agents" near Del Rio, Texas and, upon
determination that he was "a noncitizen who illegally entered the United States," was
arrested and then released on parole).
As such, under da Cunha, "Section 1225(b)(2)(A) applies to those noncitizens
[like Petitioner here] who present themselves at a port of entry for admission, or who
cross the physical border into the United States but are apprehended at the 'threshold
of initial entry."' da Cunha, 175 F.4th at 75 (citation modified).
Petitioner indeed was "seeking admission" into the United States when he
entered and was first encountered by government agents. He was at or near the
border intending to enter and remain here. 	He has voluntarily remained since (until
the commencement of his current detention), thereby continuing to "seek" admission to
the United States. How could it be otherwise? Ifhe were not so seeking admission, he
would have given up and departed already and, certainly, would have so departed
after his release.
In addition, the "entry fiction" doctrine, which treats petitioners the same way
now, under the Constitution, as when they were first encountered, is in accord. 	See da
Cunha, 2026 WL 1146044 at *15 (citing Thuraissigiam); see also Thuraissigiam, 591
U.S. at 139-40; Poonjani v. Shanahan, 319 F. Supp. 3d 644, 648 (S.D.N.Y. 2018)
(same, as to a petitioner stopped at the border and paroled into the country).
4
Case 1:26-cv-01851-JLS Document 6 Filed 10/08/26 Page 4 of 5

For the reasons state d above, Petition er is detained under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1225(b)(2)(A) and, therefore, is not entitled to a bond hearing . Thus , Respondents '
motion to dismiss is granted, and the petition is denied.
The Clerk of Court shall close this case.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: 	October 8, 2026
Buffalo, New York
).
C; r '·	.. .J 	L-JOHN L/ SINATRA, JR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
5
Case 1:26-cv-01851-JLS Document 6 Filed 10/08/26 Page 5 of 5