Page 37 - The Indian EYE 022726

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 Ҥ 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