Joaquin Avila v. Pamela Bondi, et al
Split Score
What is a Split Score?
This score (0-100) indicates how likely this case is to be reviewed by the Supreme Court based on:
Case Summary
Disposition
Reversed
The Eighth Circuit reversed the district court’s grant of habeas relief to Joaquin Herrera Avila, holding that § 1225(b)(2)(A) authorizes mandatory, no-bond detention of any alien "present in the United States who has not been admitted," because the phrases "applicant for admission" and "seeking admission" are synonymous. The panel concluded Avila was therefore properly detained without a bond hearing and remanded for further proceedings.
Circuit Split Identified
Legal Issue
Whether the terms “applicant for admission” and “seeking admission” in 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) are equivalent, thereby subjecting all unadmitted aliens found in the interior to mandatory detention without bond.
Circuit Positions
“Applicant for admission” is synonymous with “seeking admission”; § 1225(b)(2)(A) mandates detention without bond for any unadmitted alien found in the United States.
“Seeking admission” requires an affirmative, present-tense act to obtain lawful entry; interior aliens who simply entered without inspection are not covered and may request bond hearings under § 1226(a).
Conflict Summary
The Fifth and Eighth Circuits read § 1225(b)(2)(A) to make the two phrases synonymous, so any alien present in the United States who has not been admitted is automatically detained without bond. The Seventh Circuit, by contrast, holds that an alien is ‘seeking admission’ only when taking affirmative, present-tense steps to gain lawful entry, so interior aliens who have merely entered illegally are not covered and may seek bond under § 1226(a).