They appear to have selected this case for a published decision to :
1. Re-affirm that district court decisions are not binding on IJs and BIA (unless of course they are named parties to the particular case and there is a injunction entered).
2. Re-affirm and follow Matter of Yajure Hurtado and Matter of Lemus.
3. In essance hold that unless a non-citizen "identifie[s] any lawful admission" they are subject to 235(b) mandatory detention as applicants for admission and IJ has no authority to re-determine status.
4. Holds that "Section 236(a) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. Β§ 1226(a), governs a different statutory category and does not apply where Congress has prescribed detention rules for applicants for admission under section 235. See generally Nielsen v. Preap, 586 U.S. 392, 406β14 (2019) (analyzing the statutory provisions of section 236 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. Β§ 1226)." It does not tell us, of course, what that "different category" is but it is clear that in their view it applies only to people who were previously admitted, ergo, if no 237 charge or returning LPR, IJ are to find no jurisdition. Why? This is the entirety of the reasoning:
* Unlawful entry into the United States does not constitute admission
and
* remaining in the United States for an extended time following unlawful entry does not transform an illegal entry into a lawful admission.
continued