Basic HTML Version

|  | Table of Contents |  | View Full Version

Page 37 - The Indian EYE 022726
P. 37

    IMMIGRATION                                                        FEBRUARY 27, 2026       |  The Indian Eye 37

            to determine the meaning of key stat-  1048, 1062 (7th Cir. 2025).   Only a  corpus as a key mechanism for chal-  use Loper Bright to insulate itself
            utory terms governing detention.”  handful of district courts have ad-  lenging unlawful prolonged deten-  from a court’s independent review of
                Nonetheless, most district courts  opted the reasoning laid out by the  tion.                     the statute. Only a federal court can
            outside the Fifth Circuit have not  Fifth Circuit in Buenrostro. See e.g.     The BIA in Yajure Hurtado  invoke Loper Bright to justify why it
            been persuaded and continue to rule  D.M.R.D. v. Andrews and  Zhuang  invoked Loper Bright to conclude  is not deferring to the agency’s erro-
            in favor of releasing the citizen using  v.  Bondi.    Even  the  Fifth  Circuit’s  that the language under INA 235(b)  neous interpretation of a statute. To
            their own independent interpreta-  decision in Buenrostro-Mendez also  (2)(A) is clear and explicit to justify  date, there have been hundreds of
            tion of the INA under Loper Bright.  does not preclude release based on  the detention of a noncitizen who  federal court decisions that have not
            District court cases that have cited  constitutional grounds. In Buenros-  entered without inspection without  paid deference to Yajure Hurtado
            Buenrostro to date have primarily  tro-Mendez, the Fifth Circuit did  bond.  Paradoxically,  the  majority  of  and are also not deferring to the Fifth
            done so to point out that the Fifth  not consider whether a noncitizen  courts who have also invoked Loper  Circuit decision in  Buenrostro-Men-
            Circuit’s holding is an outlier and  detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1225 may  Bright have done so to justify that  dez v. Bondi.
            nonbinding. See, for example,  Aro-  be constitutionally entitled to a bond  they need not pay deference to the
            ca v. Mason, Pascual Jose-de-Jose  hearing at the outset of proceedings,  BIA’s interpretation of INA 235(b)  *Kaitlyn Box is a Partner at Cyrus D.
            v. Noem,  Carlos Roldan Chang v.  or even to release on constitutional  (2)(A) in Yajure Hurtado. An admin-  Mehta & Partners PLLC.
            Noem. In a New Jersey district court  grounds. It also leaves intact habeas  istrative agency like the BIA cannot
            case, Judge Padin wrote in her opin-  ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
            ion that the court was “unpersuad-
            ed” by the Fifth Circuit’s decision in   Cyrus D. Mehta, a graduate of Cambridge University and Columbia Law School, is the Managing Partner of Cyrus D. Mehta
            Buenrostro, reasoning that “the ma-  & Partners PLLC in New York City. Mr. Mehta is a member of AILA’s Administrative Litigation Task Force; AILA’s EB-5 Com-
            jority’s interpretation risks rendering  mittee; former chair of AILA’s Ethics Committee; special counsel on immigration matters to the Departmental Disciplinary
            substantial portions of the statutory   Committee, Appellate Division, First Department, New York; member of the ABA Commission on Immigration; board member
            scheme  superfluous  and  internally   of Volunteers for Legal Services and board member of New York Immigration Coalition.  Mr. Mehta is the former chair of the
            inconsistent”. The Seventh Circuit   Board of Trustees of the American Immigration Council and former chair of the Committee on Immigration and Nationality
            preliminarily concluded that the U.S.
            Department of Homeland Security   Law of the New York City Bar Association. He is a frequent speaker and writer on various immigration-related issues, including
            was not likely to prevail on its argu-  on ethics, and is also an adjunct professor of law at Brooklyn Law School, where he teaches a course entitled Immigration and
            ment that “§ 1225(b)(2)(A) covers  Work.  Mr. Mehta received the AILA 2018 Edith Lowenstein Memorial Award for advancing the practice of immigration law
            any noncitizen who is unlawfully al-  and the AILA 2011 Michael Maggio Memorial Award for his outstanding efforts in providing pro bono representation in the
            ready in the United States as well   immigration field. He has also received two AILA Presidential Commendations in 2010 and 2016.  Mr. Mehta is ranked among
            as those who present themselves at   the most highly regarded lawyers in North America by Who’s Who Legal – Corporate Immigration Law 2019 and is also ranked
            its  borders,”  Castanon-Nava  v.  U.S.
            Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 161 F.4th   in Chambers USA and Chambers Global 2019 in immigration law, among other rankings.

                                                                   www.TheIndianEYE.com

| 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 |