Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
WILLY FRANCOIS
v.
KRISTI NOEM, et al.
:
:
:
:
:
CIVIL ACTION
No. 25-7334
MEMORANDUM
Judge Juan R. Sánchez 	January 5, 2025
Petitioner Willy Francois brings this petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2241, challenging his detention by the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”). He
argues his mandatory detention without providing a bond hearing pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §
1225(b)(2), a provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), is illegal. 	Because §
1225(b)(2) does not apply to noncitizens like Francois who have resided within the United States
for years, his petition will be granted.
BACKGROUND1
Willy Francois is a noncitizen from Haiti who came to the United States seeking asylum.
Pet. Writ Habeas Corpus ¶¶ 16-20, Dkt. No. 1. On April 27, 2022, Francois arrived at the border
and was affirmatively paroled into the country by DHS pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5). Id. ¶¶
17-18. After Francois was paroled, he moved to Philadelphia where he has been living with his
two children. Ex. 3, Dkt. No. 1-1. He later that year applied for asylum and Temporary Protected
Status (“TPS”). Pet. Writ Habeas Corpus ¶¶ 3, 20. The Government granted TPS to him for an
18-month period which has since expired. Id. ¶ 21. Francois unsuccessfully attempted to apply
1 	The Government, “[f]or the purposes of responding to this habeas petition only, . . . does
not dispute other facts or characterizations thereof stated in the petition (except if the petitioner
claims he has been “admitted” to the United States).” Gov’t Resp. Opp. Pet. 3, Dkt. No. 3. The
Court will therefore accept the non-legal factual allegations of Francois’ habeas petition as true.
Case 2:25-cv-07334-JS Document 4 Filed 01/05/26 Page 1 of 5

2
for an extension of TPS. Id. His asylum application remains pending. Id. ¶ 20. Since his entry
into the country, Francois has complied with all the conditions of his release to date. Id. ¶ 19.
On or around December 24, 2025, Francois was detained by Immigration and Custom
Enforcement (“ICE”) while attending a routine check-in. 	Id. ¶ 26. 	He alleges that he was not
provided a formal custody determination justifying his detention, official confirmation that
removal proceedings have been initiated against him, or an opportunity for a bond hearing. Id. ¶
26. 	As of December 24, 2025, DHS had not filed any charging documents with the Executive
Office for Immigration Review to commence removal proceedings against Francois. Id. ¶ 26. He
is currently being held at the Federal Detention Center in Philadelphia. Id. ¶ 16.
Francois filed the instant habeas petition on December 25, 2025. 	The Government
responded on January 2, 2026. 	It contends Francois was detained by ICE pursuant to the
administration’s new policy to subject all noncitizens who have never been admitted, regardless
of whether they were stopped at the border or arrested years later inside the country to mandatory
detention without bond under § 1225(b). Gov’t Resp. Opp. Pet. 1-4; see also Ndiaye v. Jamison,
No. 25-CV-6007, 2025 WL 3229307, at *2 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 19, 2025) (describing the history of the
new policy). The Government has not provided any other justification for detaining Francois.
DISCUSSION
Francois argues his detention is illegal because he has been improperly subjected to
mandatory detention without bond under § 1225(b)(2) instead of § 1226’s discretionary detention.
The Government concedes in its response that the “factual and legal issues presented in this habeas
corpus petition do not differ in a material way from those considered and decided by this Court”
in Ndiaye v. Jamison, No. 25-CV-6007, 2025 WL 3229307 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 19, 2025). Gov’t Resp.
Opp. Pet. 1. It “responds in opposition to the instant petition on the same grounds that it did in
Case 2:25-cv-07334-JS Document 4 Filed 01/05/26 Page 2 of 5

3
Ndiaye for purposes of appellate preservation, mindful that the Court has found these arguments
unpersuasive.” Id. Considering this concession, the Court will adopt the reasoning of its previous
opinion in Ndiaye, 2025 WL 3229307 in addition to the various cases decided in the district to
grant Francois’ habeas petition.
The Court finds the rationale applied in Ndiaye is equally applicable to the instant matter.2
Since this Court’s decision in Ndiaye, the Government’s position has become even weaker. Every
day, more district courts around the country and within the Eastern District of Pennsylvania have
ruled against the Government’s position. 	As of November 26, 2025, “[t]he challengers have
prevailed, either on a preliminary or final basis, in 350 of those cases decided by over 160 different
judges sitting in about fifty different courts spread across the United States.” Barco Mercado v.
Francis, No. 25-CV-6582, 2025 WL 3295903, at *4, *13 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 26, 2025). In the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania alone, over 42 cases have been decided on this same issue with the
Government losing all of them. Gov’t Resp. Opp. Pet. 2-3 & n.1.
While the Government has appeals pending and no appellate court has made a final
decision on this issue,3 this Court has identified at least one circuit decision that has recently cast
serious doubt on the Government’s arguments: Castañon-Nava v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec.,
No. 25-3050, 2025 WL 3552514 (7th Cir. Dec. 11, 2025). The Seventh Circuit in Castañon-Nava,
2 	In Ndiaye, “[a]fter reviewing the text and structure of the INA, longstanding agency
practice, Congress’ actions, and the canon of constitutional avoidance, the Court [found] § 1226
applies to noncitizens . . . who have been residing in the country, while § 1225 is reserved for
newly arriving noncitizens.” 	Ndiaye, 2025 WL 3229307, at *8. 	The Court also found the
jurisdiction provisions of the INA and exhaustion jurisprudence do not bar this Court from review.
Id. at *2-4.
3 	Notably while the Government has pursued appeals, none of those appeals seem to be in
the Third Circuit.
Case 2:25-cv-07334-JS Document 4 Filed 01/05/26 Page 3 of 5

4
the court found the Government was “not likely to succeed on the merits of [its] argument that
those individuals, whom ICE arrested without a warrant, are subject to mandatory detention under
§ 1225(b)(2)(A).” Id. at *10.4 The court held the Government’s interpretation of § 1225 is wrong
because the plain meaning of the term “seeking admission,” within the statute, limits mandatory
detention to those who are not already in the country and any interpretation to the contrary would
render this language superfluous. Id. at *8-10. This holding is consistent with the rationale of the
many district cases that have been decided on this issue including Ndiaye. 	See, e.g., 2025 WL
3229307, at *5-6. Castañon-Nava provides even more persuasive authority that the Government’s
position is wrong.
The Court will now briefly address some differences between Francois and the petitioner
in Ndiaye. Unlike the petitioner in Ndiaye, Francois was paroled into the country under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1182(d)(5) which is granted “only on a case-by-case basis for urgent humanitarian reasons or
significant public benefit” and had received TPS protection. The Court finds these differences do
not impact Francois’ right to habeas relief. 	In a factually similar case, a Court in the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania applied Ndiaye to find a noncitizen, who was paroled under § 1182(d)(5),
was illegally detained without a bond hearing. Rios Porras v. O’Neill, No. 25-CV-6801, 2025 WL
3708900, at *1 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 22, 2025). Courts around the country have also found noncitizens
who were paroled under § 1182(d)(5) are not subject to mandatory detention if they have been
residing within the country for years. 	See, e.g., Cabrera Martinez v. Marich, No. 25-CV-1110,
2025 WL 3771228, at *5-13 (W.D.N.Y. Dec. 31, 2025) (analyzing § 1182(d)(5)(A) to conclude
4 	The Seventh Circuit made these findings while reviewing an application for stay of a
preliminary injunction. Id. at *1. So, its analysis was limited to the likelihood of success on the
merits and does not have the full weight of a final decision on the merits. The Court still finds this
preliminary decision and analysis has strong persuasive value.
Case 2:25-cv-07334-JS Document 4 Filed 01/05/26 Page 4 of 5

5
“an individual who has been living in the United States outside parole and is later apprehended is
detained under section 1226”).
The fact Francois had TPS which then expired also does not impact his petition. Courts in
this district and around the country have found a petitioner’s TPS status does not materially impact
their right to habeas relief under similar circumstances. See, e.g., Hurtado v. Jamison, No. CV 25-
6717, 2025 WL 3678432, at *3 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 18, 2025) (applying Ndiaye grant habeas relief for
a TPS applicant); Emilcent v. O’Neill, No. CV 25-7015, 2025 WL 3709295, at *1-3 (E.D. Pa. Dec.
22, 2025) (granting habeas relief for a detained noncitizen who was paroled under § 1182(d)(5)
and then granted TPS status which has since expired); Valera v. Raycraft, No. 25-CV-1718, 2025
WL 3777044, at *10-13 (W.D. Mich. Dec. 31, 2025) (same). These cases are persuasive.
Based on these decisions and the Court’s previous opinion in Ndiaye, the Court finds
Francois’ claims are not barred by the INA’s jurisdiction stripping provisions or exhaustion
requirements and that he cannot be detained under § 1225. Francois’ current detention is therefore
illegal, and he is entitled to habeas relief.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the Court will grant Petitioner Willy Francois’ for Writ of Habeas Corpus in
full and order his immediate release.5
An appropriate Order follows.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Juan R. Sánchez
Juan R. Sánchez, J.
5 	Like in Ndiaye, the Government has not offered any rationale for detaining Francois
beyond the mandatory detention provision of § 1225, therefore, this Court will order Francois
immediate release without a bond hearing. See 2025 WL 3229307, at *8 & n.5.
Case 2:25-cv-07334-JS Document 4 Filed 01/05/26 Page 5 of 5