An appellate ruling overturns a Minnesota decision and finds that individuals without lawful entry status fall under mandatory detention provisions.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom
A federal appeals court has ruled that immigration authorities may detain individuals who entered the United States without lawful admission without providing bond hearings while their removal cases proceed, reversing a prior order from a Minnesota district court.
In its decision, outlined in the court’s opinion federal appellate ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit determined that individuals present in the country without legal admission are considered “applicants for admission” under federal immigration law.
The case involved Joaquin Herrera Avila, a Mexican national who entered the United States without authorization in 2006 and again in 2016. In August 2025, federal agents encountered him during a traffic stop in Minneapolis. Authorities stated he acknowledged lacking legal status, after which Immigration and Customs Enforcement took him into custody and initiated removal proceedings.
An immigration judge denied his request for a bond hearing. A federal district court later granted relief, ordering that he be released or provided a bond hearing within seven days.
The appellate court reversed that order. The panel concluded that the statute governing detention applies to individuals without lawful entry, regardless of how long they have been present in the United States. The court stated that the terms “applicant for admission” and “seeking admission” apply to such individuals under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A), making detention without bond permissible during ongoing proceedings.
The ruling rejects the lower court’s interpretation that the statute applies only to individuals encountered at the border.
The decision aligns with a recent ruling from the Fifth Circuit in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, which also upheld detention authority without bond under similar circumstances.
Judge Erickson issued a dissent, stating that the interpretation adopted by the majority differs from prior applications of the statute and that individuals who have lived in the country for extended periods should have access to bond hearings.
A social media post discussing the outcome described the ruling as the second appellate decision addressing detention policy, while noting that lower courts may continue to evaluate related due process claims in individual cases.
Original article
Comments