U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi granted a habeas corpus petition filed by Alex Morocho Morocho, concluding that the government improperly detained him under a statute that did not apply to his circumstances. The ruling, issued July 16, 2026, from the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, turns on which statutory detention authority applies when ICE arrests a noncitizen who has been living in the United States—and it has significant implications for practitioners handling detention and removal cases.
What changed
Morocho, a native and citizen of Ecuador, unsuccessfully attempted to enter the United States in 2002 and 2021 before later crossing the southern border without inspection sometime after August 2021. The court said Morocho then lived with his brother in New Jersey for an extended period before being arrested during a targeted immigration enforcement operation on June 25, 2026. Court filings state he has no criminal history and had remained in custody at Delaney Hall without receiving a bond hearing.
The federal government argued Morocho was lawfully detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2), a provision governing certain applicants seeking admission into the United States. But Judge Quraishi disagreed. Quraishi wrote that “Petitioner’s continued mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2) is therefore unlawful.”
Government attorneys asked the court to require only that Morocho receive a bond hearing under a different immigration statute, 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), which generally governs detention of noncitizens already present in the United States. Judge Quraishi declined, writing that it was not the court’s responsibility to correct the government’s legal error by converting the detention into one authorized under another statute. Because the Government had only sought to detain Morocho under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2), and he was clearly not subject to detention under that statute, the court ordered the government to release him from custody immediately.
The ruling follows several similar decisions issued this year by the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey rejecting the government’s use of Section 1225(b)(2) in cases involving migrants who had been living in the United States before being detained by immigration authorities.
Why it matters
The practical distinction is sharp: noncitizens apprehended at the border or shortly after entry may fall under § 1225(b)(2), which mandates detention without a bond hearing. But noncitizens who have resided in the United States for an extended period fall under § 1226(a), which permits detention but requires individualized bond hearings. By using the wrong statute, ICE detained Morocho without a hearing—depriving him of due process.
For practitioners representing detained clients, this decision reinforces a powerful habeas corpus argument: if your client entered the U.S. and has been living here (even without status), challenge any detention under § 1225(b)(2) as facially inapplicable. The government cannot simply correct the statutory basis after the fact; if it charged the wrong statute, the detention is unlawful.
The ruling also signals that multiple federal judges in the Third Circuit are converging on this interpretation. Practitioners should note this pattern when drafting habeas petitions and raising arguments in bond hearings.
Way forward
- Review any client detention under § 1225(b)(2). If your client entered the U.S. and resided here before apprehension, file a habeas petition or raise a motion to release at the next bond hearing, citing Morocho v. Blanche and the companion decisions cited in Judge Quraishi’s opinion.
- Do not accept government re-designation to § 1226(a) as a substitute remedy. Judge Quraishi’s order makes clear that converting detention to a different statutory basis is the government’s burden to fix, not the court’s.
- Preserve the record of when and where your client entered and how long they lived in the United States before arrest. These facts are essential to disqualify § 1225(b)(2).
- Track Third Circuit habeas decisions over the coming months. This ruling may prompt appellate review; practitioners should monitor appeals and circuit precedent as the government challenges these holdings.
Disclaimer
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Folaform is a software company, not a law firm. You should consult a licensed immigration attorney in your jurisdiction before relying on any information in this article to advise a client, prepare a filing, or take any action. Immigration policy and court decisions can change without notice. Verify the current status of any statute, regulation, or judicial ruling by consulting the primary sources linked above and a qualified legal professional.