Erlan Esenbekov v. Craig A. Lowe, Warden of Pike County Correctional Facility, et al.

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

ERLAN ESENBEKOV, A245 513 230, CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:26-cv-01123 Petitioner, (SAPORITO, J.) v.

CRAIG A. LOWE, Warden of Pike County Correctional Facility, et al.,

Respondents.

MEMORANDUM On April 29, 2026, the petitioner, appearing through counsel, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Doc. 1. In this petition, Erlan Esenbekov, a native and citizen of Kyrgyzstan, challenges the legality of his pre-removal immigration detention without an individualized bond hearing. At the time of filing, Esenbekov was being held in the custody of United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) at Pike County Correctional Facility, located in Pike County, Pennsylvania. I. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Esenbekov initially entered the United States without inspection at or near Tecate, California, on or about November 25, 2023. Esenbekov was apprehended by the United States Border Patrol shortly thereafter

and detained briefly. On or about November 28, 2023, he was released on his own recognizance, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a).1 Resp. Ex. 1, at 3, Doc. 3-2. At the time of his release, Esenbekov was served with a

Notice to Appear, DHS Form I-862, dated November 28, 2023, which declared him to be subject to removal as an “alien present in the United States who has not been admitted or paroled,”2 and which directed him

to appear for a hearing before an immigration judge in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on May 13, 2025. Pet. Ex. A, Doc. 1-2; Resp. Ex. 2, Doc. 3- 3.

After his entry into the United States in November 2023, Esenbekov settled in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, where he resided with his wife and infant daughter before being incarcerated.3 On or about

1 At the time of his initial release, Esenbekov was served with an immigration arrest warrant, a notice to appear, and an order of release on recognizance. Resp. Ex. 1, at 3, Doc. 3-2. 2 Notably, a box on the Notice for declaring him to be an “arriving alien” was checked. Pet. Ex. A, Doc. 1-2. 3 Esenbekov’s wife is also a citizen of Kyrgyzstan. His daughter is a United States citizen by birth. On May 1, 2026, his wife’s application for asylum was granted. Upon his detention, the petitioner’s parallel application was apparently severed from hers, and thus he was not granted derivative asylum status automatically. 8 U.S.C. November 25, 2024, Esenbekov timely filed an application for asylum,

withholding of removal, and deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture. Prior to his arrest and detention, Esenbekov had no criminal history and had complied with all ICE reporting requirements.

On July 8, 2025, ICE officers arrested Esenbekov as exited his apartment and approached his personal vehicle.4 Esenbekov was transported to Pike County Correctional Facility, where he remains in

civil immigration detention. He has been denied any opportunity to post bond or to be released on other conditions. On April 10, 2026, an immigration judge denied Esenbekov’s

application for asylum and withholding or deferral of removal, and she ordered his removal to Kyrgzstan. Resp. Ex. 3, Doc. 3-4. Esenbekhov has timely filed an appeal of the immigration judge’s decision to the

Board of Immigration Appeals, which remains pending.

§ 1158(b)(3) (permitting spouses of asylees to obtain derivative asylum status). In the petitioner’s reply, his counsel has expressed an intent to file a DHS Form I-730 Refugee/Asylee Relative Petition seeking derivative asylum for the petitioner. 4 ICE had apparently targeted Esenbekov for arrest and detention after being notified by local law enforcement of a traffic stop involving the petitioner, which apparently related to his state vehicle registration. II. DISCUSSION Since the United States began restricting immigration into this country in the late 19th century, it has distinguished between those noncitizens seeking entry into the country and those already residing within it. Noncitizens “stopped at the boundary line” who have “gained no foothold in the United States” do not enjoy the same constitutional protections afforded to persons inside the United States. But once a noncitizen enters the United States, “the legal circumstance changes,” for the constitutional right to due process applies to all “persons” within our nation’s borders, “whether their presence here is lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent.” This distinction between noncitizens who have entered and reside in the United States and those who have not yet entered “runs throughout immigration law.” , 809 F. Supp. 3d 1113 (D. Idaho 2025) (first quoting , 267 U.S. 228, 230 (1925); and then quoting , 533 U.S. 678, 693 (2001)) (citations omitted). Consistent with this distinction, “[t]wo statutory sections govern the detention of noncitizens prior to a final order of removal: 8 U.S.C. § 1225 and 1226.” , 801 F. Supp. 3d 1104, 1111 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 23, 2025), , No. 25-7429 (9th Cir. Nov. 25, 2025). As concisely summarized by the Supreme Court: “U.S. immigration law authorizes the Government to detain certain aliens into the country under §§ 1225(b)(1) and (b)(2). It also authorizes the Government to detain certain aliens pending the

outcome of removal proceedings under §§ 1226(a) and (c).” , 583 U.S. 281, 289 (2018) (emphasis added). Under § 1225, “an alien who ‘arrives in the United States,’ or ‘is

present’ in this country but ‘has not been admitted,’ is treated as an ‘applicant for admission.’” , 583 U.S. at 287 (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1225(a)(1)). Applicants for admission may be detained pending removal

under two separate provisions: § 1225(b)(1) and § 1225(b)(2). Section 1225(b)(1) applies to aliens who ( ) are arriving in the United States, § 1225(b)(1)(A)(i) (the “arriving aliens provision”), or

have been physically present in the United States for less than two years without being admitted or paroled, § 1225(b)(1)(A)(iii) (the “designation provision”),5 ( ) are inadmissible either for

5 This so-called “designation provision” further limits this group of aliens subject to expedited removal proceedings to certain categories of aliens expressly designated by the Secretary of Homeland Security, § 1225(b)(1)(a)(ii), but the current scope of that designation is “the full scope of statutory authority,” and thus all aliens who have not been admitted or paroled into the United States and who have not been physically present in the United States continuously for the two-year period prior to determination of inadmissibility are subject to expedited removal under § 1225(b)(1). , 90 Fed. Reg. 8139 (Jan. 24, 2025); misrepresenting a material fact while attempting to gain admission to

the United States or for lacking proper immigration documentation. 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1)(A); § 1182(a)(6)(C) (inadmissibility based on misrepresentation); § 1182(a)(7) (inadmissibility for lack of

documentation). For these aliens, § 1225(b)(1) provides for expedited removal proceedings without further hearing or review, unless the alien expresses a fear of persecution or an intent to apply for asylum, in which

case the alien is subject to mandatory detention pending a final determination of credible fear of persecution and, if found not to have such a fear, until removal. § 1225(b)(1)(B).

, 962 F.3d 612, 618–20 (D.C. Cir. 2020) (summarizing expedited removal provisions); , 811 F. Supp. 3d 274, 291–92 (E.D.N.Y. 2025) (same);

, 805 F. Supp. 3d 48, 59–64 (D.D.C. 2025) (same), , No. 25-5289 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 11, 2025). Section 1225(b)(2) is a “broader . . . catchall provision” that applies

, 962 F.3d 612, 619–20 (D.C. Cir. 2020) (providing a historic overview of groups designated under § 1225(b)(1)(a)(ii)); , 805 F. Supp. 3d 48, 62–64 (D.D.C. 2025) (same), , No. 25-5289 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 11, 2025). to other “applicants for admission” who are “seeking admission” to the

United States.6 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A); , 583 U.S. at 287. Under § 1225(b)(2), an applicant for admission is placed into ordinary (not expedited) removal proceedings. § 1225(b)(2)(A);

§ 1229a (describing ordinary removal proceedings before an immigration judge). With limited exceptions, however, an alien is subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2) while removal proceedings remain pending.

§ 1225(b)(2)(A); § 1182(d)(5) (authorizing the Secretary of Homeland Security to grant humanitarian parole to aliens awaiting removal proceedings); § 1225(b)(2)(C) (providing that aliens arriving on

land from a foreign territory contiguous to the United States may be returned to that foreign territory pending removal proceedings, rather than be detained); , 809 F. Supp. 3d at 1113 (“Section

1225(b) mandates detention without bond hearings, except for narrow humanitarian parole.”). Meanwhile, as noted above, § 1226 “authorizes the Government to

detain certain aliens already in the country pending the outcome of

6 The statute expressly provides that § 1225(b)(2) does not apply to those to whom § 1225(b)(1) applies, as well as other categories not relevant here. 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(B). removal proceedings.” , 583 U.S. at 289. Such aliens who are

already present in the United States may be detained pending removal under two separate provisions: § 1226(a) and § 1226(c). Section 1226(a) prescribes a discretionary detention framework for

these aliens when subject to removal proceedings, providing that: “On a warrant issued by the Attorney General,[7] an alien may be arrested and detained pending a decision on whether the alien is to be removed from

the United States.” 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). The statute further provides that such an alien may be released on bond while removal proceedings remain pending. § 1226(a)(2). The relevant implementing regulations provide

that a § 1226(a) detainee may be released on bond upon showing “that such release would not pose a danger to property or persons, and that the alien is likely to appear for any future proceeding.” 8 C.F.R. §§ 236.1(c)(8),

1236.1(c)(8). Immigration authorities8 are tasked with an initial bond or custody determination, §§ 236.1(c)(8), 1236.1(c)(8), after which the

7 This statutory authority to issue immigration arrest warrants has been delegated to a number of supervisory immigration officials listed in the applicable regulations. 8 C.F.R. § 287.5(e)(2); §§ 236.1(b), 1236.1(b). 8 The same supervisory immigration officials authorized to issue arrest warrants. 8 C.F.R. §§ 236.1(c)(8), 1236.1(c)(8). alien may request an individualized bond hearing before an immigration

judge, §§ 236.1(d)(1), 1236.1(d)(1); § 1003.19 (setting out procedures for the review of bond determinations by immigration judges). , 586 U.S. 392, 397 (2019) (“If the alien is

detained, he may seek review of his detention by an officer at the Department of Homeland Security and then by an immigration judge (both exercising power delegated by the Secretary); and the alien may

secure his release if he can convince the officer or immigration judge that he poses no flight risk and no danger to the community.”) (citations omitted). An adverse bond determination by the immigration judge can

be appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals. 8 U.S.C. §§ 236.1(d)(3), 1236.1(d)(3). , 906 F.3d 274, 275 (3d Cir. 2018) (summarizing § 1226(a)

bond procedures). Finally, “Section 1226(c) . . . carves out a statutory category of aliens who may be released under § 1226(a).” , 583 U.S. at

289. This subsection specifies certain criminal histories that require mandatory detention of aliens who would otherwise be eligible for a bond hearing under § 1226(a). 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c). Such criminal aliens may only be released under very narrow circumstances involving a

determination by the Attorney General that the alien’s release is necessary for witness-protection purposes and the alien does not pose a flight risk or a danger to the community. § 1226(c)(4);

, 583 U.S. at 289. The petitioner in this case, Erlan Esenbekov, has been detained by immigration authorities without a bond determination pending

disposition of his ordinary, § 1229a removal proceedings.9 In his petition, Esenbekov argues that, because he was detained within the interior of the United States, he is not properly subject to mandatory pre-removal-

order detention under § 1225(b)(2). Rather, he contends that he may only be properly detained under § 1226(a), which requires that he be given an opportunity for an individualized bond hearing. Esenbekov further

asserts a claim under the Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”) based

9 The parties appear to agree that the petitioner has been putatively detained without an opportunity for a bond determination pursuant to § 1225(b)(2). The respondent has identified no other basis for his detention. Moreover, the petitioner has not been placed in expedited removal proceedings, as would be expected for a § 1225(b)(1) detainee, he has no criminal record to qualify him for mandatory detention under § 1226(c), and immigration officials have refused to give him a bond hearing, as required under § 1226(a). on the agency’s failure to follow its own bond regulations.10 In addition to

these statutory arguments, Esenbekov argues that his pre-removal detention without an opportunity to be considered for release on bond violates his Fifth Amendment due process rights.11

The respondent, on the other hand, argues that § 1225(b)(2) does properly apply to the petitioner, and that it prescribes mandatory detention.12 The respondent further argues that applying § 1225(b)(2)

here comports with due process.13 The respondent purports to have detained Esenbekov pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2), which provides for mandatory detention without

the opportunity for release on bond. The petitioner, however, contends that he could only be properly detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), and

10 Having granted relief on the basis of the petitioner’s primary statutory claim—that his detention is pursuant to § 1226(a) rather than § 1225(b)(2)—we decline to reach the petitioner’s alternative argument that his detention violates the APA. 11 Having found a statutory basis for relief, we do not reach the constitutional issues raised by the petitioner as alternative grounds for relief. , 485 U.S. 439, 445 (1988) (“A fundamental and longstanding principle of judicial restraint requires that courts avoid reaching constitutional questions in advance of the necessity of defending them.”). 12 We note that the respondent’s answer does not engage with the petitioner’s APA claim at all. In any event, see note 10. 13 note 11. under that statute, he is entitled to an individualized bond hearing.

“[F]or section 1225(b)(2)(A) to apply, several conditions must be met—in particular, an ‘examining immigration officer’ must determine that the individual is: (1) an ‘applicant for admission’; (2) ‘seeking

admission’; and (3) ‘not clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted.’” , 792 F. Supp. 3d 211, 214 (D. Mass. 2025) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A)), , No. 25-1902 (1st Cir.

Dec. 23, 2025); , 2025 WL 3188399, at *6 (citing ); , No. 3:25-CV-02411, 2025 WL 3709045, at *4 (M.D. Pa. Dec. 22, 2025) (citing and );

, No. 4:26-CV-00009, 2026 WL 296215, at *4 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 4, 2026) (citing ). Significantly, “Section 1225(b)(2)(A) applies only to an alien who is an applicant for

admission and ‘seeking admission.’” , 2025 WL 3188399, at *6 (emphasis in original); , 2025 WL 3709045, at *4 (citing and , 807 F. Supp. 3d 397,

406 (D.N.J. 2025)); , 2026 WL 296215, at *4 (quoting ). Section 1225 defines an “applicant for admission” as “[a]n alien present in the United States who has not been admitted or who arrives

in the United States.” 8 U.S.C. § 1225(a)(1). Meanwhile, the phrase “seeking admission” is not defined in § 1225, and the courts of this circuit have construed the plain language of “seeking admission” to describe

“active and ongoing conduct—physically attempting to come into the United States, typically at a border or a port of entry.” , 2025 WL 3188399, at *6; , 2025 WL 3709045, at *4

(citing ); , 2026 WL 296215, at *4 (citing ). “This reading preserves the distinction between ‘seeking admission’ and the separate term ‘applicant for admission,’

ensuring that each phrase carries independent meaning.” , 2025 WL 3188399, at *6; , 2025 WL 3709045, at *4 (quoting ); , 2026 WL 296215, at *4

(quoting ). It also comports with the Supreme Court’s finding in that “§ 1225(b) applies primarily to aliens seeking entry into the United States.” , 583 U.S. at 297;

, 2025 WL 3709045, at *4 (quoting ); , 2026 WL 296215, at *4 (quoting and ). “In sum, a plain reading of § 1225(b) demonstrates that it applies to individuals who are attempting to enter the United States, not those

already within the country.” , 2026 WL 296215, at *4; , 2025 WL 3188399, at *7 (considering the statutory context of § 1225(b)(2) and concluding that this provision “contemplates

inspection and detention at or immediately following border crossing”). By contrast, as the Supreme Court has previously recognized, “§ 1226 applies to aliens already present in the United States.” ,

583 U.S. at 303; , 2026 WL 296215, at *4 (quoting ). “Section 1226(a) creates a default rule for those aliens by permitting—but not requiring—the Attorney General to issue warrants

for their arrest and detention pending removal proceedings,” and it “permits the Attorney General to release those aliens on bond.” , 583 U.S. at 303; , 2026 WL 296215, at *4 (quoting

); , 2025 WL 3709045, at *5 (“Unlike § 1225(b)(2)(A), § 1226(a) provides for bond or conditional parole.”) (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a)(2)). “[U]nder Section 1226(a) and its implementing

regulations, [an alien discretionarily detained pending removal proceedings] is entitled to a bond hearing before an Immigration Judge at which the government must prove by clear and convincing evidence that he poses a danger to the community[] or . . . that he is a flight risk,

if it seeks to continue detaining him.” , 804 F. Supp. 3d 265, 277 (D. Mass. 2025);14 , 812 F. Supp. 3d 459, 462– 63 (D.N.J. 2025) (“Noncitizens who are arrested after having lived in the

United States for a while do not generally have to be detained. They are instead entitled to a bond hearing before an immigration court.” (citing ) (citations and footnote omitted)). ,

2026 WL 296215, at *4 (“[I]f an individual is detained attempting to enter the country illegally or while otherwise presenting themselves for inspection and entry, they are subject to mandatory detention pursuant

14 We note that, applying First Circuit precedent, the court stated that the government may prove that an alien is a danger to the community by clear and convincing evidence, or that he is a flight risk by the lesser preponderance-of-the-evidence standard. , 804 F. Supp. 3d at 277 (citing , 10 F.4th 19, 41 (1st Cir. 2021)). The Third Circuit, however, has held that the government must prove either dangerousness flight risk by clear and convincing evidence. , 965 F.3d 203, 213–14 (3d Cir. 2020) (“When the Government seeks to take more than just money from a party, we typically hold the Government to a standard of proof higher than a preponderance of the evidence.”); , 12 F.4th 321, 333 n.9 (3d Cir. 2021) (“[I]t is a ‘settled rule that when a party stands to lose his liberty, even temporarily, we hold the Government’ to a ‘clear and convincing evidence’ standard in the context of civil detention . . . .”) (quoting ); , 547 F. Supp. 3d 462, 465 (M.D. Pa. 2021) (quoting ). to § 1225. If they are arrested after having already entered the country,

they are subject to detention under § 1226 and are entitled to a bond hearing.”). Here, § 1226(a), not § 1225(b)(2)(A), applies to the detention of

Esenbekov. We find that Esenbekov is no longer seeking admission into the United States—at the time of his arrest and detention, he was not actively attempting to come into the United States at a border or port of

entry. Rather, he is already here, having resided within the United States for an extended period of time. , 2025 WL 3188399, at *1 (finding that petitioner who lived in the United States for almost two

years was not “seeking admission” but “already here”); , 2025 WL 3709045, at *5 (citing ). Thus, Esenbekov may only be properly detained pursuant to § 1226(a), and therefore he is

entitled to a bond hearing. , 2026 WL 296215, at *5. , No. 3:25-cv-2185, 2025 WL 3516865, at *4 (M.D. Pa. Dec. 8, 2025) (“The overwhelming majority of federal district

courts that have addressed this issue have interpreted the INA to find that persons similarly situated to Petitioner—noncitizens who previously entered the United States and are currently residing in the United States—are not subject to the mandatory detention provision of 8 U.S.C.

§ 1225(b)(2)(A) but instead are subject to the discretionary detention pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and accordingly are entitled to a bond hearing.”); at *4 & n.7 (collecting Third Circuit district court cases).15

III. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the court concludes that the petitioner is currently detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), not 8 U.S.C.

15 , ___ F.4th ____, 2026 WL 1146044, at *5, 6 (2d Cir. Apr. 28, 2026) (“Section 1226(a) plainly applies to noncitizens, like Petitioner, who are present in the United States, but charged as inadmissible for entering the country without inspection and admission. . . . Section 1225(b)(2)(A) applies to those noncitizens who present themselves at a port of entry for admission, or who cross the physical border into the United States but are apprehended at the ‘threshold of initial entry.’”); , ___ F.4th ____, 2026 WL 1223250, at *21 (7th Cir. May 5, 2026) (“[T]he text, statutory context, legislative history, and long-standing Executive practice all confirm that § 1225(b)(2)(A) applies to ‘applicants for admission’ who are seeking lawful entry at the border or ports of entry and not to noncitizens unlawfully living in the country’s interior.”); , ___ F.4th ____, 2026 WL 1243395, at *1 (11th Cir. May, 6, 2026) (“The text and statutory structure of the INA, bolstered by the long history of detention across our immigration laws and the congressional purpose in passing IIRIRA, yield the conclusion that no-bond detention generally applies to arriving aliens seeking lawful entry to the country, and not to aliens who are simply present here.”); , ___ F.4th ____, at *11, 2026 WL 1283891 (6th Cir. May 11, 2026) (holding that noncitizens without lawful status who had lived in the United States for years were not “seeking admission” and thus were not subject to § 1225(b)(2)(A)’s mandatory detention scheme). § 1225(b)(2), and thus he is entitled to an individualized bond hearing.

Accordingly, the petition will be granted, and the government will be ordered to provide the petitioner with an individualized bond hearing within twenty-one days or to release him from custody.

An appropriate order follows.

Dated: May 21, 2026 JOSEPH F. SAPORITO, JR. United States District Judge