Quiroz v. Mullin, 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 Tenth Circuit held that 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) applies only to non-citizens encountered at the border, not to those arrested inside the United States. Therefore, petitioner Rigoberto Santillan Quiroz, detained in Oklahoma awaiting removal proceedings, falls under § 1226(a) and is entitled to a bond hearing. The court reversed the district court’s denial of habeas relief and remanded for prompt bond proceedings or release.
Circuit Split Identified
Legal Issue
Whether 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) mandates bond-less detention for non-citizens found in the interior of the United States who have not been admitted, or whether such individuals are instead detained under § 1226(a) and may seek bond.
Circuit Positions
§ 1225(b)(2)(A) applies only at the border; interior detainees fall under § 1226(a) and may request bond.
§ 1225(b)(2)(A) applies to all unadmitted non-citizens, including those arrested in the interior; detention is mandatory and bond is unavailable.
Conflict Summary
The Second, Sixth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits construe § 1225(b)(2)(A) as limited to non-citizens ‘seeking admission’ at the border, leaving interior arrests to § 1226(a) with bond eligibility. The Fifth and Eighth Circuits read ‘applicant for admission’ to encompass all unadmitted non-citizens, wherever found, thereby requiring mandatory detention without bond under § 1225(b)(2)(A).