govinfo:USCOURTS-pawd-3_26-cv-00232-0

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 
 
  
ALVARO ISAAC MARTINEZ-BRICENO,  
  
  Petitioner, Civil Action No. 3:26-cv-232 
  
v. Hon. William S. Stickman IV 
  
WARDEN OF MOSHANNON VALLEY 
PROCESSING CENTER, et al, 
 
  
  Respondents.  
  
 
 
ORDER OF COURT 
 
Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s  Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus.  (ECF N o. 
1).  P etitioner, a citizen of  Venezuela, is currently detained at  Moshannon Valley Processing 
Center.  He entered the United States on or about September 17, 2022, after making illegal entry.  
He was detained , and then released.   Petitioner was rearrested in January, 2026.  It is not clear 
whether Petition h as requested a bond hearing, but t he Court finds the fact that Petitioner may  
not have fully exhausted all of his administrative remedies prior to filing his habeas petition to be 
of no moment as it is an  e xercise in futility given the recent decisions of t he Board of 
Immigration Appeals (i.e., Matter of Q. Li, 29 I. & N. Dec. 66 ( BIA 2025) and Matter of Yajure 
Hurtado, 29 I. & N. Dec. 216 (BIA 2025)).   
Petitioner asserts that he is su bject to discretiona ry detention pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 
1226(a) and not mandatory detention under § 1225(b) (2) and, therefore, that he is entitled to  a 
bond hearing.  The Court agrees.  Section 1226 applies to aliens who are “already present in the 
United States[,]” Jennings v. Rodriguez , 583 U.S. 281, 303 (2018), while the mandatory 
detention provision of § 1225 governs detention of “ applicants for ad mission” to the United 
Case 3:26-cv-00232-WSS     Document 13     Filed 03/30/26     Page 1 of 3
States.  Bethancourt Soto v. Soto, No. 25- CV-16200, 2025 WL 2976572, at *2 (D.N.J. O ct. 22, 
2025).  Th e Court joins the overwhelming majority of district courts in holding that § 1226(a), 
rather than the mandatory detention provision of § 1225(b), applies to aliens similarly situated to 
Petitioner, who are not seeking admission at a port of entry but rather ar e already present in the 
country.  The Court disagr ees with the decision s of the Unite d States Court of A ppeals for the 
Fifth C ircuit in  Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi , 166 F.4th 494 (5th Cir. 2026) and the Eighth 
Circuit in Avila v. B ondi, -- F.4th --, 2026 WL 819258 (8th Cir. March 25, 2026) .  Petitioner’s 
detention is governe d b y § 1226(a) and the Co urt holds that he has a stat utory right to a n 
individualized bond hearing.   
AND NOW, this   30 day of March 2026, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s 
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus  (ECF No. 1) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN 
PART.  It  is GRANTED in that within ten (10) days of t his Order, Petitioner mu st receive an 
individualized bond hearing before a neutral immigration judge pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226.  
Within seven (7) days therea fter, the parties shall provide notice to the Court of the outcome of 
the bond hearing.  IT IS FU RTHER O RDERED that the petition is DENIED to the extent it 
requests any additional relief.   
Finally, Petitioner seeks an award of attorneys ’ fees and ex penses pursuant to the Equal 
Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d).  Under the EAJA, a court may award fees 
and e xpenses to a prevailing party against the United States, unless “ the court finds that the 
position of the United States was subst antially justified or that special circumstances make an 
award unjust .”  28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A ).  T he key issu e here is whet her Petitioner is an 
“applicant for admission”  under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(a).  Respondents argued that “ applicant for 
admission” includes noncitizens like Petitioner who have already been residing in the interior of 
Case 3:26-cv-00232-WSS     Document 13     Filed 03/30/26     Page 2 of 3
the United States.   T he Court concludes that Re spondents’ interpretation of § 1225(a), while 
incorrect, is substantially justified.  The Court is mindful that the United State s Court of Appeals 
for the Third Circuit has not yet interpreted the meaning of “ applicant for a dmission” under § 
1225(a), and that the two United States Courts of Appeals to have considered this issue ruled that 
“applicant for admission” includes noncitizens like Petitioner who have resided in the interior of 
the country for years.  See Buenrostr o-Mendez;  Avila.  T he Court holds that Pet itioner is not 
entitled to attorneys’ fees under the EAJA.  
BY THE COURT: 
 
       /s/William S. Stickman IV   
WILLIAM S. STICKMAN IV 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Case 3:26-cv-00232-WSS     Document 13     Filed 03/30/26     Page 3 of 3

Passage view · GavelSight