Danny Mendez Tovar, an Ecuadorian citizen who entered the United States without inspection in December 2022, has been detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement since March 11, 2026 — more than three years after his arrival. ICE held him under a federal statute that the agency claims requires mandatory detention of anyone who entered without inspection, regardless of how long they have lived in the country.
Judge Neals rejected that interpretation, following his recent ruling in a similar case that found the government cannot use 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) to detain immigrants who have established residence in the United States. "The Court finds the facts asserted in the Petition establish that Petitioner cannot be mandatorily detained under § 1225(b)(2) as he has resided in the United States for several years after entry without admission or parole," Neals wrote in his four-page order.
The judge's strongest language came when rejecting the government's alternative argument that Mendez Tovar could simply be transferred to a different type of detention. "The Court will not correct Respondents' unlawful application of § 1225(b)(2) and detention of Petitioner by converting Petitioner's detention to 'potentially lawful alternate form under a different statute with different procedural requirements and rules,'" Neals wrote, quoting from another recent District of New Jersey ruling.
The case represents the latest in a series of challenges to a Department of Homeland Security policy that interprets federal immigration law to require mandatory detention of border crossers, even those who have lived in the U.S. for years. The Board of Immigration Appeals endorsed this interpretation in Matter of Yajure Hurtado in 2025, but multiple federal judges in New Jersey have rejected it. In December 2025, Judge Neals ruled against the same policy in Fuentes Velasquez v. Noem, finding that § 1225(b)(2) cannot be used to detain long-term U.S. residents simply because they initially entered without inspection.
Government lawyers argued that even if the mandatory detention statute didn't apply, Mendez Tovar should receive only a bond hearing under the discretionary detention provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). But Neals found that "the Government did not attempt to follow the requirements of that statute in taking him into custody, nor have they used that statute as a basis for his detention, nor have they provided him with bond hearing to which he is entitled to under that statute."
The ruling appears to be part of a broader pattern in the District of New Jersey, where judges have repeatedly sided with detained immigrants challenging the government's expansive interpretation of mandatory detention authority. Judge Neals cited at least four other recent cases — including Fajardo-Nugra v. Soto, Valerio v. Joyce, Hueso v. Soto, and Tyagi v. Soto — where district judges reached similar conclusions about long-term residents held under § 1225(b)(2).
Beyond ordering Mendez Tovar's release within 24 hours, Judge Neals imposed additional restrictions on the government. He permanently enjoined ICE from detaining Mendez Tovar under the disputed statute and prohibited any new detention under the alternative provision for 14 days "to ensure full effectuation of this Court's judgment and to prevent circumvention of the relief granted." The judge also ordered ICE to return all of Mendez Tovar's personal property, including his driver's license, passport, and cellphone.
The case highlights the ongoing legal battle over immigration detention policies, with federal judges increasingly pushing back against broad government interpretations of detention authority while the Biden administration has maintained many of the same enforcement priorities as its predecessor.