Saul Castillo-Casanova v. U.S. Attorney General

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
• Decided: February 23, 2026
• Docket: 24-10645
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA11 Case: 23-13664 Document: 52-1 Date Filed: 02/23/2026 Page: 1 of 6

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 23-13664 ____________________

IRELA LABRADA-HECHAVARRIA, GABRIELA PEREZ-LABRADA, Petitioners, versus

U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ____________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A220-284-514 ____________________ ____________________ No. 24-10645 ____________________ USCA11 Case: 23-13664 Document: 52-1 Date Filed: 02/23/2026 Page: 2 of 6

2 Opinion of the Court 24-10645

SAUL ENRIQUE CASTILLO-CASANOVA, YANEXI ARENCIBIA-BORGES, ALESSANDRO CASTILLO-ARENCIBIA, Petitioners, versus

U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ____________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A220-371-590 ____________________

Before JORDAN and MARCUS, Circuit Judges, and JONES,∗ District Judge. PER CURIAM: These immigration cases arise out of removal proceedings against two familial groups of petitioners—Irela Labrada-Hecha- varria and her daughter, Gabriela Perez-Labrada (the first family group), and Saul Enrique Castillo-Casanova, Yanexi Arencibia-Bor- ges, and Alesandro Castillo-Arencibia (the second family group). All are Cuban nationals who entered the United States without documentation. After their entry, they were briefly detained by the Department of Homeland Security before being released.

∗ The Honorable Steve C. Jones, United States District Judge for the Northern

District of Georgia, sitting by designation. USCA11 Case: 23-13664 Document: 52-1 Date Filed: 02/23/2026 Page: 3 of 6

24-10645 Opinion of the Court 3

I The questions in these cases revolve around the statutory bases for the petitioners’ detention and subsequent release. We summarize the procedural history for each group of petitioners be- low. Irela Labrada-Hechavarria and Gabriela Perez-Labrada. An immigration judge ordered these petitioners removed. See A.R. 50–51. As relevant here, the IJ ruled that the petitioners were not eligible for adjustment of status under the Cuban Adjustment Act, Pub. L. No. 89-732, 80 Stat. 1161 (Nov. 2, 1966), because release on their own recognizance did not constitute a grant of parole that would permit such adjustment. See A.R. 45. The Board of Immi- gration Appeals, in a single-judge order, dismissed the petitioners’ appeal. See A.R. 502. The BIA concluded that the petitioners had been detained by the government pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and had been released on their own recognizance. Because they had not been inspected, admitted, or granted parole, they were not eligible for adjustment of status under the CAA. See A.R. 502-03 (relying on Matter of Cabrera-Fernandez, 28 I. & N. Dec. 747, 749-50 (BIA 2023)). Saul Enrique Castillo-Casanova, Yanexi Arencibia-Bor- ges, and Alesandro Castillo-Arencibia. An immigration judge or- dered these petitioners removed. See A.R. 62–64. As relevant here, the IJ ruled that the petitioners were not eligible for adjustment of status under the CAA because they had not been admitted and re- lease on their own recognizance did not constitute a grant of parole USCA11 Case: 23-13664 Document: 52-1 Date Filed: 02/23/2026 Page: 4 of 6

4 Opinion of the Court 24-10645

that would permit such adjustment. See A.R. 96–97. The BIA dismissed the petitioners’ appeal, ruling that under Matter of Cabrera-Hernandez the petitioners’ release on their own recogni- zance did not constitute a grant of parole. See A.R. 5. II The petitioners now seek review of the BIA’s decisions in their respective cases. In their initial briefs, they argued that they had been detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(a) as applicants for admission and then granted parole. As a result, they say, they are eligible for adjustment of status under the CAA. See Petitioners’ In- itial Br. in Labrada-Hechavaria at 12–41; Petitioners’ Initial Br. in Castillo-Casanova at 12–41. The government, in its answer briefs, argued (1) that we lack jurisdiction to review the DHS’ discretion- ary § 1226 determination under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g), and (2) alterna- tively on the merits that the BIA correctly determined that the pe- titioners were detained pursuant to § 1226(a). See Government’s Answer Br. in Labrada-Hechavaria at 15–46; Government’s Answer Br. in Castillo-Casanova at 16–48. In July of 2025, before we heard oral argument, the govern- ment filed a notice of supplemental authority. See, e.g., D.E. 31. In that notice, the government reversed its position and asserted that the petitioners had been detained pursuant to § 1225(a), which in its view is the only provision that is possibly applicable in circum- stances like these. Despite its about-face on the legal issue before us, the government still argued that the petitions should be denied because the petitioners simply benefited from a mistake on the part USCA11 Case: 23-13664 Document: 52-1 Date Filed: 02/23/2026 Page: 5 of 6

24-10645 Opinion of the Court 5

of the DHS and should not benefit from that error now. See id. at 2. The petitioners, on the other hand, maintained that they were detained pursuant to § 1225(a) and are therefore eligible for adjust- ment of status under the CAA. See, e.g., D.E. 32 at 2. III After reviewing the record, and with the benefit of oral ar- gument, we conclude that we have jurisdiction, vacate the BIA’s or- ders in the two cases, and remand for further proceedings. We have jurisdiction. Although 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g) is a juris- diction-stripping provision, we continue to have jurisdiction to ad- dress the main legal question presented here—whether the peti- tioners were detained pursuant to § 1225(a) or § 1226(a). We have held that § 1252(g) is construed “narrowly” and that we “apply it to preclude ‘[e]fforts to challenge the refusal to exercise [favorable] discretion on behalf of specific aliens,’ as well as those claims that would lead to ‘the deconstruction, fragmentation, and hence pro- longation of removal proceedings.’” Alvarez v. U.S. Immigr. & Cus- toms Enf ’t, 818 F.3d 1194, 1205 (11th Cir. 2016) (citations omitted). Neither of those two situations are presented here by the § 1225(a)/§ 1226(a) question. For a number of reasons, we believe the best resolution is to vacate the BIA’s decisions that the petitioners in these two cases were detained pursuant to § 1226(a) and therefore are ineligible for adjustment of status under the CAA. First, the government has changed its position as to which statute governed the petitioners’ detention, and it now agrees with the petitioners that they were USCA11 Case: 23-13664 Document: 52-1 Date Filed: 02/23/2026 Page: 6 of 6

6 Opinion of the Court 24-10645

detained under § 1225(a). Second, the BIA, following its ruling in these cases, has issued precedential decisions on the scope of § 1225(a), and those decisions may inform its disposition of the peti- tioners’ argument that they are eligible for adjustment of status. See, e.g., Matter of Q. Li, 29 I. & N. Dec. 66, 67–68 (BIA May 15, 2025); Matter of Hurtado, 29 I. & N. Dec. 216, 225 (BIA Sept. 5, 2025). Third, the federal appellate courts are divided as to the ap- plicability of §§ 1225(a) and 1226(a). Compare, e.g., Buenrostro-Men- dez v. Bondi, --- F.4th ----, 2026 WL 323330, *4–9 (5th Cir. Feb. 6, 2026) (2-1 decision), with, e.g., Castañon-Nava v. U.S. Dep’t of Home- land Sec., 161 F.4th 1048, 1061–62 (7th Cir. 2025) (preliminary in- junction appeal). Fourth, the majority of district courts to have ad- dressed this issue have rejected the government’s new position— that all noncitizens who came into the United States illegally but are living in the United States must now be detained under § 1225(a) until their removal proceedings are completed. See Barco Mercado v. Francis, No. 25-CV-6582, 2025 WL 3295903, *4 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 26, 2025) (noting that the government has been challenged in at least 362 similar cases in federal district court and that 350 of those cases, decided by over 160 judges, have resolved this same issue against the government). PETITIONS GRANTED AND CASES REMANDED TO THE BIA FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.