govinfo:USCOURTS-pawd-3_26-cv-01024-0

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 
 
 
CARLOS ALBERTO AMENDANO ) 
SUCUZHANAY, ) 
 Petitioner, ) 
 ) Civil No. 26-1024 
v. ) 
 ) 
TODD LYONS, et. al., ) 
 Respondents. ) 
 
 
MEMORANDUM OPINION 
 
 Pending now before the court is a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1) filed 
by Carlos Alberto Amendano Sucuzhanay (“Sucuzhanay”). Todd Lyons, et.al. (collectively, 
“Respondents”) filed a response in opposition (ECF No. 9). The petition is ripe for decision. 
Sucuzhanay, who did not identify his citizenship in the Petition but asserts he has been in 
the United States for 26 years and has two minor children who are United States citizens, asserts 
that he is subject to discretionary 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. 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 admission” to the United States. Bethancourt Soto v. Soto, No. 25-CV-16200, 
2025 WL 2976572, at *2 (D.N.J. Oct. 22, 2025). The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has 
not addressed this issue. The court joins the other judges of this district court 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 are already 
present in the country. The court is aware of the contrary decisions reached by the United States 

2 
 
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, 166 F.4th 494 (5th Cir. 
2026), and the Eighth Circuit in Avila v. Bondi, -- F.4th --, 2026 WL 819258 (8th Cir. March 25, 
2026). Petitioner's detention is governed by § 1226(a) and the court concludes that he has a 
statutory right to an individualized bond hearing. 
To the extent that Petitioner seeks an award of attorneys’ fees and expenses pursuant to 
the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d), the court concludes that they 
will not be awarded. Under the EAJA, a court may award fees and expenses to a prevailing party 
against the United States, unless “the court finds that the position of the United States was 
substantially justified or that special circumstances make an award unjust.” 28 U.S.C. § 
2412(d)(1)(A). The key issue here is whether 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 the United States. The court 
concludes that Respondents’ interpretation of § 1225(a), while incorrect, is substantially 
justified. The court is mindful that the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has 
not yet interpreted the meaning of “applicant for admission” 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 Buenrostro-Mendez; Avila. The court concludes that Petitioner is not entitled to 
attorneys’ fees under the EAJA. 
 
 
 
 

3 
 
 
 
Conclusion 
For the reasons set forth above, the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1) will 
be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. It will be GRANTED in that within ten (10) 
days of this Order, Petitioner must receive an individualized bond hearing before a neutral 
immigration judge pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226. Within seven (7) days thereafter, the parties 
shall provide notice to the court of the outcome of the bond hearing. The petition will be 
DENIED to the extent it requests any additional relief. 
 
An appropriate Order will be entered. 
 
Dated: June 9, 2026 BY THE COURT: 
 
 /s/ Joy Flowers Conti 
Joy Flowers Conti 
 Senior United States District Court Judge 

Passage view · GavelSight