Exant v. MARKWAYNE MULLINExant v. MARKWAYNE MULLIN
Judge Juan R. Sánchez August 4, 2026
Petitioner Jackson Exant brings this petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to
BACKGROUND
Jackson Exant is a 33-year-old native and citizen of Hati who entered the United States without inspection on May 2, 2022 and currently resides in Dover, Delaware. Pet. ¶¶ 2, 19, Dkt. No. 1. He was apprehended by the DHS and released. Id. ¶ 20. He later filed for asylum which remains pending. Id. ¶ 21. He also successfully applied for Temporary Protected Status which has since expired and has not been renewed. Id. ¶¶ 22-23.
On June 9, 2026, he was charged in Kent County Court of Common Pleas in Delaware with a variety of assault and weapons offenses. Gov‘t Resp. 2, Dkt. No. 4. During this time, he remained in state custody while his criminal case was pending. Pet. ¶ 24. On June 11, 2026, the Government lodged a detainer on Exant. Gov‘t Resp. Ex. A 2. Dkt. No. 4-1. On July 9, 2026, his charges were reduced to misdemeanors and transferred to Kent County Family Court. Gov‘t Resp. 3. These charges include Carrying a Concealed Dangerous Instrument, Menacing, Assault Third
On July 26, 2026, he was remanded by local law enforcement into Immigration and Customs Enforcement‘s (ICE) custody and detained. Gov‘t Resp. Ex. A 2. He filed this petition on July 29, 2026, arguing his detention without a bond hearing is unlawful. Id. ¶¶ 45-46. The Government contends Exant is detained under
DISCUSSION
This case turns on a statutory question this Court and many others in this District have already resolved against the Government: whether a noncitizen who entered without inspection years ago and is later arrested in the interior remains an alien “seeking admission” within the meaning of
In Ndiaye v. Jamison, this Court held that ”
Appellate courts have now split on the issue. Rejecting the overwhelming weight of authority from district courts around the country, divided panels of the Fifth and Eighth Circuits have agreed with the Government‘s position, holding that an “applicant for admission” is “seeking admission” so long as he is “‘present in the United States [and] has not been admitted,’ . . . regardless of whether he takes ‘any further affirmative steps to gain admittance.‘” Avila v. Bondi, 170 F.4th 1128, 1134 (8th Cir. 2026) (alteration in original) (citations omitted); Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, 166 F.4th 494, 502 (5th Cir. 2026). The Second, Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits, in contrast, have “join[ed] the overwhelming majority of federal judges across the Nation” in holding that
None of this appellate authority binds this Court, but the decisions in Barbosa da Cunha, Lopez-Campos, Cirrus Rojas, Rodriguez Vazquez, Santillan Quiroz, and Hernandez Alvarez align with this Court‘s analysis in Ndiaye and with “the decisions of over 370 district judges across the Nation who (as of mid-February 2026) have also rejected the government‘s position.”2 Barbosa da Cunha, 175 F.4th at 71. This Court will adhere to its prior decisions holding that ”
Unlike many of the other immigration detainee petitioners this Court has encountered, Exant has pending criminal charges that appear to involve domestic violence. So the Government suggests the Court order a bond hearing be given to Exant instead of releasing him. But the “‘typical remedy’ for ‘unlawful executive detention’ is release.” Dos Reis v. McShane, No. CV 26-3775, 2026 WL 1746649, at *5 (E.D. Pa. June 17, 2026) (Sánchez, J.) (quoting Munaf v. Geren, 553 U.S. 674, 693 (2008)).
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the Court will grant Petitioner‘s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus and order his immediate release. An appropriate Order follows.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Juan R. Sánchez
Juan R. Sánchez, J.