Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
ABDOULAYE DIALLO,
Petitioner,
v.
PAMELA BONDI, et al.,
Respondents.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 25-7421
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Rufe, J. 	January 6, 2026
Petitioner Abdoulaye Diallo is an immigrant from Guinea who was recently detained by
the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) under the Immigration and Nationality Act
(“INA”) while his asylum application was pending. He now brings a petition under 28 U.S.C. §
2241 challenging that detention. Diallo argues that his detention rests upon an unlawful
interpretation of 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) and denies him due process.1 The Court agrees that
Diallo cannot be subject to mandatory detention under 28 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) because of his
established residence in the United States. The Petition will be granted.
I. 	B ACKGROUND
Abdoulaye Diallo is a twenty-one-year-old citizen and national of Guinea who came to
the United States through the southern border to seek asylum.2 He arrived in the United States on
November 5, 2023, without inspection.3 After a brief period of detention upon his arrival, Diallo
was released into the United States on his own recognizance.4 Since his arrival in the United
1 Petition [Doc. No. 1].
2 Petition ¶ 3 [Doc. No. 1]; Ex. E at 5-7 [Doc. No. 1-8].
3 Petition ¶ 4 [Doc. No. 1].
4 Petition ¶ 5 [Doc. No. 1].
Case 2:25-cv-07421-CMR Document 7 Filed 01/06/26 Page 1 of 6

2
States, Diallo has been in removal proceedings because he entered the United States without
admission or inspection.5 On November 8, 2023, he was served with a Notice to Appear in
Removal Proceedings at a hearing scheduled for April 15, 2025.6 That hearing was canceled on
April 4, 2025, and no new date to return was provided.7
On February 16, 2024, Diallo applied for asylum.8 He is work authorized, has no criminal
history, and has family in the United States.9 He is employed and resides with his family at a
fixed location.10
On December 26, 2025, Diallo was arrested at an Immigration and Customs Enforcement
(“ICE”) Check-In, and he has been detained at the Federal Detention Center Philadelphia since
his arrest.11 He did not receive a bond hearing.
Diallo’s detention is the product of a new DHS policy, under which “individuals present
in the United States without admission or parole are now treated as applicants for admission
subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2) rather than discretionary detention under §
1226(a).”12 The Board of Immigration Appeals adopted this interpretation in Matter of Yajure
Hurtado.13
5 Petition ¶ 6 [Doc. No. 1].
6 Petition, Ex. C [Doc. No. 1-6].
7 Petition ¶ 8 [Doc. No. 1]; Ex. G [Doc. No. 1-8].
8 Petition ¶ 6 [Doc. No. 1]; Ex. E [Doc. No. 1-8].
9 Petition ¶¶ 7-10 [Doc. No. 1].
10 Petition ¶ 10 [Doc. No. 1].
11 Petition ¶ 1 [Doc. No. 1].
12 Yilmaz, 2025 WL 3459484, at *1 (quoting Ndiaye v. Jamison, No. 25-6007, 2025 WL 3229307, at *2 (E.D. Pa.
Nov. 19, 2025)).
13 29 I. & N. Dec. 216 (B.I.A. 2025); see Petition ¶¶ 37-38 [Doc. No. 1].
Case 2:25-cv-07421-CMR Document 7 Filed 01/06/26 Page 2 of 6

3
On December 31, 2025, Diallo filed the instant Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus
under 28 U.S.C. §2241.14 On January 2, 2026, this Court ordered the government to show cause
why Diallo’s petition should not be granted.15 It also scheduled a show cause hearing.16 Upon the
parties’ request, the Court canceled the hearing and will decide the Petition on the papers.17
II. 	L EGAL S TANDARD
Federal district courts are authorized to grant a § 2241 petition where the petitioner is
detained “in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.”18 It is the
petitioner’s burden to show that the detention violates the Constitution of the United States or
federal law.19
III. 	DISCUSSION
The issues of this case are not novel. As the government acknowledges, numerous
decisions of this district court have rejected Hurtado and found that the application of 8 U.S.C. §
1225(b)(2) to noncitizens residing in the United States is unlawful.20 This Court considers each
14 Petition [Doc. No. 1].
15 1/2/26 Order [Doc. No. 2].
16 1/2/26 Order [Doc. No. 2].
17 Stipulation [Doc. No. 5]; 1/6/26 Order [Doc. No. 6].
18 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3); Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510, 523 (2003) (“[T]he Fifth Amendment entitles [noncitizens]
to due process of law in deportation proceedings.” (citations and quotation marks omitted)).
19 See Goins v. Brierley, 464 F.2d 947, 949 (3d Cir. 1972).
20 Gov’t Response at 1-2 n.1 [Doc. No. 4]. See, e.g., Demirel v. Fed. Det. Ctr. Phila., No. 25-5488, 2025 WL
3218243 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 18, 2025) (noting that, as of November 18, 2025, 282 of 288 district court decisions had
found that the application of § 1225(b)(2) to noncitizens residing in the United States is unlawful); Cantu-Cortes v.
O'Neill, No. 25-6338, 2025 WL 3171639 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 13, 2025); Kashranov v. Jamison, No. 25-5555, 2025 WL
3188399 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 14, 2025); Ndiaye v. Jamison, No. 25-6007, 2025 WL 3229307 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 19, 2025);
Patel v. McShane, No. 25-5975, 2025 WL 3241212 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 20, 2025); Centeno Ibarra v. Warden of the Fed.
Det. Ctr. Phila., No. 25-6312, 2025 WL 3294726 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 25, 2025); Flores Obando v. Bondi, No. 25-6474,
2025 WL 3452047 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 1, 2025); Yilmaz v. Warden of the Fed. Det. Ctr. Phila., No. 25-6572, 2025 WL
3459484 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 2, 2025); Conde v. Jamison, No. 25-6551, 2025 WL 3499256 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 5, 2025);
Bhatia v. O’Neill, No. 25-6809, 2025 WL 3530075 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 9, 2025); Anirudh v. McShane, No. 25-6458,
2025 WL 3527528 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 9, 2025); Picon v. O’Neill, No. 25-6731, 2025 WL 3634212 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 15,
2025). There have been twenty-one additional decisions ruling against the government since December 15, 2025.
Gov’t Resp. at 1-2 n.1 [Doc. No. 4]. Not including the already-decided petitions, as of January 5, 2026, there are
Case 2:25-cv-07421-CMR Document 7 Filed 01/06/26 Page 3 of 6

4
case on an ad hoc basis, and its rulings turn on the facts of each case at issue. While the
government acknowledges this Court’s decisions in Djalilov, Bhatia, Yilmaz, and Centeno Ibarra
and notes its disagreement, the government has not appealed any of these decisions.21 Based
upon the facts of Diallo’s case and the legal theory presented by the government, this Court has
no basis to diverge from its previous rulings.
First, as in Djalilov, Bhatia, Yilmaz, Centeno Ibarra, and many similar district court
decisions,22 the Court concludes that it has jurisdiction to review Diallo’s petition. The
jurisdiction-stripping statutory provisions cited by the government do not apply.23 Diallo
“challenges his detention rather than the initiation of removal proceedings, because [Diallo]
cannot obtain relief for his detention following a final order regarding removal, and because
[Diallo’s] detention is not the byproduct of a discretionary determination.”24 Nor is Diallo’s
petition barred by a failure to exhaust administrative remedies because any exhaustion would
have been futile. The issue presented is purely one of statutory interpretation, and the BIA’s
decision in Hurtado would control any pursuit of administrative remedies before the BIA.25
Second, the Court reads § 1225(b)(2) narrowly and in accordance with the principles of
statutory interpretation. The unambiguous plain meaning of an “applicant for admission” who is
“seeking admission” is a noncitizen at a port of entry seeking to cross into the United States, not
approximately 25 pending habeas petitions confronting the same legal issue in this District. Gov’t Resp. at 1-2 n.1
[Doc. No. 4].
21 See Centeno Ibarra v. Warden of the Fed. Det. Ctr. Phila., No. 25-6312, 2025 WL 3294726 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 25,
2025); Yilmaz v. Warden of the Fed. Det. Ctr. Phila., No. 25-6572, 2025 WL 3459484 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 2, 2025);
Bhatia v. O’Neill, No. 25-6809, 2025 WL 3530075 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 9, 2025); Djalilov v. O’Neill, No. 25-6986, 2025
WL 3689147 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 19, 2025).
22 See supra note 20.
23 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g), 1252(b)(9), 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii).
24 See Yilmaz, 2025 WL 3459484, at *2.
25 See id.
Case 2:25-cv-07421-CMR Document 7 Filed 01/06/26 Page 4 of 6

5
one who has already resided in the United States.26 Instead, “the detention of noncitizens like
[Diallo] who have been long-present in the United States is governed by § 1226(a), which
entitles them to a bond hearing before continued detention is permitted.”27 Section 1226(a)’s
predominance is further demonstrated by the titles of § 1225 and § 1226, agency practice, the
rule against superfluity, recent amendments to § 1226, and the canon of constitutional
avoidance.28
Diallo may be detained under the INA only if, under § 1226(a) and the applicable
regulations, he receives a bond hearing and the facts show that he poses a risk of flight or harm
to the community.29 Here, Diallo has no criminal history and the government does not argue that
Diallo is either likely to flee or is otherwise dangerous to the community. For those reasons, a
bond hearing is unnecessary, and the Court will order Diallo’s immediate release.30
IV. 	ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS
Diallo moves for attorney’s fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act
(“EAJA”).31 The EAJA provides that “a court shall award to a prevailing party other than the
United States fees and other expenses. . . unless the court finds that the position of the United
States was substantially justified or that special circumstances make an award unjust.”32 In order
26 See Yilmaz, 2025 WL 3459484, at *3; Centeno Ibarra, 2025 WL 3294726, at *5.
27 Yilmaz at *3; see also Centeno Ibarra at *4-7; 8 C.F.R. § 1236.1(c)(8), (d)(1) (stating that bond is available to
noncitizens detained under § 1226(a) and that “the immigration judge is authorized to exercise the authority . . . to
detain the [noncitizen] in custody, release the [noncitizen], and determine the amount of bond”).
28 See Yilmaz at *3; Centeno Ibarra at *5-7.
29 See Yilmaz at *3; Centeno Ibarra at *4, *8 n.69; 8 C.F.R. § 1236.1(c)(8), (d)(1).
30 See Karshranov, 2025 WL 3188399, at *8 (“[A] habeas court has ‘the power to order the conditional release of an
individual unlawfully detained—though release need not be the exclusive remedy and is not the appropriate one in
every case in which the writ is granted.’” (quoting Boumediene v. Bush, 533 U.S. 723, 779 (2008)).
31 28 U.S.C. § 2412.
32 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A); see also Comm’r INS v. Jean, 496 U.S. 154, 158-60 (1990).
Case 2:25-cv-07421-CMR Document 7 Filed 01/06/26 Page 5 of 6

6
to be eligible for a fee award in a civil case: (1) the claimant must be a “prevailing party”; (2) the
government’s position must not be “substantially justified”; (3) no “special circumstances make
an award unjust”; and (4) “pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(B), . . . any fee application [must]
be submitted to the court within 30 days of final judgment in the action and be supported by an
itemized statement.”33 Because the Respondents have not briefed this issue in their response, we
will direct that they file with the Court briefing for their position. The Court will therefore defer
any decision on the EAJA claim accordingly. The Court will enter a separate order directing a
briefing schedule.
V. 	CONCLUSION
As have the overwhelming majority of district courts faced with this issue,34 and for the
same reasons as in Djalilov, Bhatia, Yilmaz, and Centeno Ibarra, this Court finds that DHS
lacked legal authority to mandatorily detain Abdoulaye Diallo without a bond hearing under 8
U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). The Court will grant Diallo’s petition. An order will be entered.
33 Comm’r INS, 496 U.S. at 158.
34 See supra note 20.
Case 2:25-cv-07421-CMR Document 7 Filed 01/06/26 Page 6 of 6