Castillo Romero, a Mexican citizen, entered the United States without inspection in 2004 and lived undetected for over two decades until his arrest for driving without a license in Grant County, Indiana, on January 22, 2026. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers subsequently took him into custody on January 30 and initiated removal proceedings the same day. He is currently detained at the Clay County Jail in Brazil, Indiana, challenging ICE's authority to hold him without a bond hearing.
Judge Olson determined that Castillo Romero falls under the mandatory detention provision of 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) because he is an 'applicant for admission' who is 'seeking admission.' The court rejected the petitioner's argument that the statute only applies to recent arrivals, explaining that 'applying for admission is a participial form of the noun applicant for admission.' Olson noted that accepting Castillo Romero's interpretation would create the 'perverse incentive to enter at an unlawful rather than a lawful location' because those who evaded inspection would receive more favorable treatment than those who submitted to it.
The case arose after the Department of Homeland Security adopted a July 2025 policy instructing ICE employees to consider anyone inadmissible under § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i) as subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A). Castillo Romero also sought relief under a California federal court's injunction in Maldonado Bautista v. Noem, but that order has been stayed by the Ninth Circuit pending appeal. The court declined to require exhaustion of administrative remedies, finding that Castillo Romero's due process claim raised substantial constitutional questions beyond the BIA's jurisdiction.
The ruling aligns with recent Fifth and Eighth Circuit decisions upholding mandatory detention for long-term undocumented residents and contradicts some district court decisions within the Seventh Circuit that have granted bond hearings to similar petitioners. Judge Olson dismissed Castillo Romero's Administrative Procedure Act claim without prejudice for failure to allege final agency action, noting he had not yet requested a bond hearing. The decision reflects an ongoing nationwide split among federal courts over whether immigration authorities can detain without bond longtime undocumented residents who were not apprehended upon entry.