MARIO PEREZ DOMINGO
v.
KRISTI NOEM, ET AL.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Mario Perez Domingo sought federal habeas relief challenging his detention by DHS under an improper statutory classification. The court granted his petition, finding he was unlawfully classified as "an applicant for admission" under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) when he should have been classified as a detainee under § 1226(a), entitling him to an individualized bond hearing.
Petitioner was being unlawfully detained due to improper classification under § 1225(b)(2)(A). His proper classification is as a detainee under § 1226(a), which entitles him to an individualized bond hearing at the outset of detention. DHS's recent shift in legal interpretation does not retroactively apply to justify his detention under the new classification.
[1] An alien discovered within the United States, who has crossed the border between ports of entry and is shortly thereafter apprehended, is properly classified under 8 U.S.C. …
[2] Detention of aliens discovered within the United States under 8 U.S.C. …
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Defendants' recent reliance on § 1225(b)(2)(A) to detain noncitizens discovered within the United States upends decades of practice. Before July 8, 2025, DHS's long-standing interpretation had been that § 1226(a) applied to those who have crossed the border between ports of entry and are shortly thereafter apprehended.”
Establishes that DHS's new detention policy represented an abrupt reversal of longstanding statutory interpretation and practice
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePetitioner Mario Perez Domingo was detained by DHS and classified as an alien applicant for admission under § 1225(b)(2)(A). DHS had changed its longs…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Bond Hearing cases and more on FLexlaw
This matter is before the Court upon the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [DE 1]. Upon consideration of the parties' submissions, the pertinent portions of the record, and the applicable law, the Court finds that Petitioner is being unlawfully detained due to his improper classification as “an alien who is an applicant for admission” pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A). The Court finds that Petitioner's proper classification is a detainee pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). See Castanon-Nava v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 161 F. 4th 1048, 1062 (7th Cir. 2025) (noting that “Defendants' recent reliance on § 1225(b)(2)(A) to detain noncitizens discovered within the United States upends decades of practice. Before July 8, 2025, DHS's longstanding interpretation had been that § 1226(a) applied to those who have crossed the border between ports of entry and are shortly thereafter apprehended.” (internal marks omitted; citation omitted)). Mandatory detention of all persons illegally in the United States only became official DHS policy when Acting Director of ICE Todd M. Lyons issued an internal memorandum on July 8, 2025, explaining that the agency “revisited its legal position” on the applicability of §§ 1225(b) and 1226(a). Castañon-Nava, 161 F4th at 1062 n.13 (citation omitted); see also Gonzalez v. Sec'y,
Dep't of Homeland Sec., No. 2:25-CV-1047-KCD-DNF, 2025 WL 3677101, at *1 (M.D. Fla. 2025) (finding that federal regulations provide that aliens detained within the United States who have been here for years before their detention are entitled under § 1226(a) to receive a bond hearing at the outset of their detention). Accordingly, it is,
ORDERED that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [DE 1] is GRANTED:
1. Within 10 days of the date of this Order, Respondents shall provide Petitioner an individualized bond hearing consistent with 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a).
2. Respondents are enjoined from denying bond to Petitioner on the basis that he is detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2).
3. Respondents shall, within 24 hours of the bond hearing, file a status report indicating the outcome of the bond hearing and, if release on bond is denied, the reason(s) for the denial.
4. All pending motions are DENIED as moot.
5. This case is CLOSED.
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 11th day of February, 2026.