ALEXON JAVIER AGUIRRE-GUEVARA v. LEONARD ODDO, et al

• Court: District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
• Decided: February 11, 2026
• Docket: 3:26-cv-00070
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

ALEXON JAVIER AGUIRRE-GUEVARA,

Petitioner, Civil Action No. 3:26-cv-70

v. Hon. William S. Stickman IV

LEONARD ODDO, et al,

Respondents.

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Petitioner, a citizen of El Salvador, is currently detained at Moshannon Valley Correctional Center. He entered the United States on or about June 19, 2017, after making illegal entry by crossing the Rio Grande River on a raft and entering the United States at the Texas border. He was released on bond, and was rearrested on December 4, 2025. Although Petitioner does not assert that he requested a bond hearing, his failure to do so is of no moment to the Court as it would have been an exercise in futility given the recent decisions of the Board of Immigration Appeals (i.e., Matter of 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 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. 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 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 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 are already present in the country. The Court disagrees with the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, --- F.4th ----, 2026 WL 323330 (5th Cir. Feb. 6, 2026). Petitioner’s detention is governed by § 1226(a), and the Court holds that he has a

statutory right to a bond hearing. AND NOW, this 11th day of February 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 this Order, Petitioner must receive a bond hearing before a neutral immigration judge pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petition is DENIED to the extent it requests any additional relief. In light of the United States Court of Appeals for Third Circuit’s recent decision in Abioye v. Warden Moshannon Valley Correctional Center, --- F.4th ----, 2026 WL 263483 (3rd Cir. Feb. 2, 2026), should Petitioner wish to do so, he shall file any motion for costs and fees

pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d), within ten (10) days. BY THE COURT:

/s/William S. Stickman IV WILLIAM S. STICKMAN IV UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE