In 47 days, two federal appeals courts backed the government's mandatory detention theory under 8 U.S.C. § 1225. On February 6, 2026, the Fifth Circuit in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi held that long-time residents who entered without inspection are still "applicants for admission" and therefore subject to mandatory detention without bond under § 1225(b)(2)(A). On March 25, 2026, the Eighth Circuit in Joaquin Herrera Avila v. Bondi reached the same result in a 2-1 decision.
The practical consequence is large. For decades, many people arrested by ICE in the interior after years in the United States argued that their custody fell under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), the detention statute that allows a bond hearing before an immigration judge. The government's current position is that many of those same people instead fall under § 1225(b)(2)(A), which says they "shall be detained" while removal proceedings are pending. That reading tracks the Board's 2025 decision in Matter of Yajure Hurtado, but the issue is still being actively litigated in the Ninth Circuit appeal in Lazaro Maldonado Bautista v. Ernesto Santacruz Jr. and in the Eleventh Circuit's March 26, 2026 special hearing in Hernandez Alvarez and Cerro Perez. For anyone in removal proceedings, the availability of a bond hearing is becoming increasingly circuit-dependent.
What The Statutory Fight Is Really About
The government's argument starts with § 1225(a)(1), which says that a noncitizen "present in the United States who has not been admitted" is deemed an "applicant for admission." It then pairs that language with § 1225(b)(2)(A), which requires detention when the officer determines that an alien "seeking admission" is not clearly entitled to be admitted. Petitioners have argued that this border-focused detention provision does not apply to people who entered long ago and were later arrested in the interior, and that those cases belong under § 1226(a) instead.
That disagreement is not academic. If custody is under § 1226(a), the person can ask an immigration judge for bond. If custody is under § 1225(b)(2)(A), there is no ordinary bond-hearing route. In a system where people may still be pursuing cancellation of removal, asylum, or other defenses, the custody statute can determine whether the case is litigated from home or from a detention facility.
The Fifth And Eighth Circuits Have Now Given The Government Two Precedential Wins
In Buenrostro-Mendez, a Fifth Circuit majority held that the government's reading follows the text and structure of the post-IIRIRA statute. The panel treated "applicant for admission" and "seeking admission" as functionally equivalent and concluded that § 1225(b)(2)(A) applies to unadmitted noncitizens in the interior as well as to people encountered at the border. Judge Douglas dissented.
The Eighth Circuit's Avila decision aligned itself expressly with that reasoning. Judge Shepherd's majority opinion said the ordinary meanings of "applicant for admission" and "seeking admission" point in the same direction and rejected the idea that a person must take some new affirmative step toward lawful entry before § 1225(b)(2)(A) can apply. Judge Erickson dissented and would have affirmed the district court.
These opinions matter beyond the individual petitioners. Once a court of appeals accepts the government's reading, ICE and the immigration courts in that circuit operate with precedential support for treating long-time entrants without inspection as mandatorily detained under § 1225 rather than bond-eligible under § 1226(a).
The Issue Is Still Live In The Ninth And Eleventh Circuits
The most important live case in the Ninth Circuit is Lazaro Maldonado Bautista v. Ernesto Santacruz Jr., a Central District of California class action. The public docket reflects that, on December 18, 2025, Judge Sunshine Sykes entered judgment declaring that the bond-eligible class is detained under § 1226(a), not § 1225(b)(2), and entitled to bond consideration. The same docket shows that the Ninth Circuit assigned appeal No. 25-7958 and, on March 6, 2026, entered an administrative stay pending a ruling on the government's stay motion, insofar as the district court's judgment extended beyond the Central District of California. That is not a merits decision. It is a reminder that the Ninth Circuit has not answered the statutory question yet.
The Eleventh Circuit is one step behind the Fifth and Eighth. Its March 26, 2026 special-hearing calendar lists Fidencio Hernandez Alvarez v. Warden, Federal Detention Center, Miami, et al., consolidated with Ismael Cerro Perez v. Assistant Field Officer Director, et al. The scholars' amicus brief frames the issue directly: whether § 1225(b)(2)(A) authorizes detention without bond of people long present in the interior who entered without inspection. By the time this question reaches a third or fourth circuit on the merits, Supreme Court review becomes easier to imagine.
There Is Still Reason Not To Talk As If The Law Is Settled
The government's position now has published support in two circuits, but that is not the whole picture. In Castañon-Nava v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the Seventh Circuit said in the preliminary-injunction context that the government's reading likely fails because it would make the phrase "seeking admission" do no real work. That is not a final merits holding on this detention question, but it shows why the issue has generated so much litigation.
The district-court record has also run heavily the other way. The Fifth and Eighth Circuit opinions reversed district judges who had held that § 1226(a) governs these detentions. The Ninth Circuit class action and the pending Eleventh Circuit appeals arose from similar lower-court skepticism toward the government's effort to move long-time interior detainees into the no-bond framework.
What This Means For People In Removal Cases Right Now
The immediate lesson is practical, not theoretical. If someone was arrested by ICE after years in the United States without admission, counsel now has to ask a threshold geography question before almost anything else: which circuit controls, and what does that circuit currently allow? In the Fifth and Eighth Circuits, the government has precedential appellate decisions in hand. In the Ninth Circuit, the leading class case remains in active appellate posture. In the Eleventh, oral argument is set for March 26.
That makes early strategy more important. Bond arguments should still be preserved where the law allows them. So should statutory and habeas arguments where the law remains unsettled. For many families, the custody question will shape whether there is enough time and stability to prepare evidence for deportation defense, cancellation of removal, or other relief. This is one of those immigration fights that sounds technical until it lands in a real case file.
Practical Bottom Line
Two circuits have now endorsed the administration's mandatory-detention theory for long-time entrants without inspection. That is a significant shift, and it will affect custody practice immediately in those jurisdictions. It is not the final word. The Ninth Circuit appeal is still pending. The Eleventh Circuit hears argument on March 26, 2026. The Supreme Court is not in the case yet, but this is starting to look like the kind of detention question that does not stay regional for long.
If a family member is detained and the government says there is no bond jurisdiction because the case falls under § 1225, the circuit matters, the timing matters, and the statutory argument still matters. If you need help assessing detention strategy or bond posture in an active case, schedule a consultation.
Sources: Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, 166 F.4th 494 (5th Cir. Feb. 6, 2026); Joaquin Herrera Avila v. Bondi, No. 25-3248 (8th Cir. Mar. 25, 2026); Castañon-Nava v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 161 F.4th 1048 (7th Cir. Dec. 11, 2025); Matter of Yajure Hurtado, 29 I&N Dec. 216 (BIA 2025); Lazaro Maldonado Bautista v. Ernesto Santacruz Jr. docket; Eleventh Circuit Special Hearing Calendar, Mar. 26, 2026; Hernandez Alvarez amicus brief; 8 U.S.C. § 1225; 8 U.S.C. § 1226.
Chris Hammond is a Houston immigration attorney focused on deportation defense, asylum, and complex federal immigration litigation.