Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Bashir Khalif Abdi,
Petitioner,
v.
Eric Klang, et al.,
Respondents.
Case No. 25-cv-4559 (KMM/DJF)
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Bashir Khalif Abdi’s Amended Petition for a
Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 13) (“Petition”). Mr. Abdi is citizen of Somalia who entered the
United States from Mexico without inspection on September 23, 2024. 	(ECF No. 11-1 at 1-4.)
Within minutes after Mr. Abdi entered the country, United States Border Patrol apprehended him
and transferred him to a detention facility. (Id.)
I. 	Background
On October 2, 2024, Mr. Abdi requested asylum due to fear of persecution if he was
deported to Somalia or South Africa, his last country of residence. (Id. at 1; ECF No. 13 at 25.)
On October 16, 2024, the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) served Mr. Abdi a Notice
to Appear directing him to appear before an immigration judge for removal proceedings on
October 31, 2024. (ECF No. 11-2 at 1-2.) Two days later, Immigration and Customs Enforcement
(“ICE”) released Mr. Abdi on “Interim Parole with enrollment in the Alternatives to Detention
CASE 0:25-cv-04559-KMM-DJF Doc. 16 Filed 12/31/25 Page 1 of 7

(ATD) program.”1 (ECF No. 11 at 3.) Mr. Abdi submitted an Application for Asylum and for
Withholding of Removal on December 6, 2024. (ECF No. 13 at 40.)
During the next year, Mr. Abdi violated the terms of his interim parole multiple times, by
missing two virtual office visits and triggering a GPS monitor strap tamper alert. (ECF No. 11 at
3.) ICE arrested Mr. Abdi on December 4, 2025 to continue his removal proceedings and have
denied him an opportunity to request release on bond. (Id.; ECF No. 13 at 1.) Mr. Abdi is currently
detained at the Crow Wing County Jail in Brainerd, Minnesota. (ECF No. 13 at 3.)
Respondents include Eric Klang, the Sheriff who oversees the Crow County Jail, and
various federal officials charged with enforcing the nation’s immigration laws. (Id. at 3-4.) Mr.
Abdi’s Petition asks the Court to order “Respondents to set bond for Petitioner and release
Petitioner immediately.” 	(ECF No. 13 at 13.) 	Additionally, the Petition asks the Court to: (1.)
declare Mr. Abdi’s detention unconstitutional; (2.) enjoin Respondents from transferring Mr. Abdi
outside the District of Minnesota before a Court-ordered bond hearing takes place; (3.) enjoin DHS
from staying any bond; and (4.) award attorney’s fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice
Act, “and on any other basis justified under law.” 	(Id.) 	For the reasons that follow, the Court
recommends denying the Petition.
II. 	Analysis
Mr. Abdi’s Petition is premised on the notion that he is being detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C.
§ 1225(b)(2). Section 1225 is part of the nation’s immigration policy “at the Nation’s borders and
ports of entry, where the Government must determine whether an alien seeking to enter the country
1 ATD is a supervised release program operated by ICE that “enables aliens to remain in
their communities – contributing to their families and community organizations, and as
appropriate, concluding their affairs in the U.S. – as they move through immigration proceedings
or prepare for departure.” 	Alternatives to Detention, Immigration and Customs Enforcement,
https://www.ice.gov/features/atd (last visited December 30, 2025).
CASE 0:25-cv-04559-KMM-DJF Doc. 16 Filed 12/31/25 Page 2 of 7

is admissible.” Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281, 287 (2018). Under that Section, “an alien
who arrives in the United States or is present in this country but has not been admitted is treated
as an applicant for admission.” Id. (citation modified). “[A]pplicants for admission fall into one
of two categories, those covered by [Section] 1225(b)(1) and those covered by [Section]
1225(b)(2).” Id. Both categories of aliens are subject to mandatory detention under Section 1225.
See Belsai D.S. v. Bondi, 25-cv-3682 (KMM/EMB), 2025 WL 2802947, at *1 (D. Minn. Oct. 1,
2025) (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)).
Section 1225(b)(1) allows for expedited removal without further proceedings and
mandates detention of two groups of aliens. The first group includes those who: (1.) are arriving
in the United States and; (2.) are “initially determined to be inadmissible due to fraud,
misrepresentation, or lack of valid documentation.” Jennings, 583 U.S. at 287 (citing 8 U.S.C. §
1225(b)(1)(A)(i)). The second group includes aliens who: (1.) are determined to be inadmissible
due to fraud, misrepresentation, or lack of valid documentation; (2.) have not been admitted or
paroled in the United States; (3.) have “not affirmatively shown, to the satisfaction of an
immigration officer, that [they have] been physically present in the United States continuously for
the 2-year period immediately prior to the date of the determination of inadmissibility”; and (4.)
the Attorney General has designated as being subject to expedited removal. 	8 U.S.C. §
1225(b)(1)(A)(iii).
However, if an alien who falls within either of these groups wishes to apply for asylum, he
may avoid immediate removal and will instead be referred for further proceedings to consider his
asylum claim, including an interview with an asylum officer. 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1)(A)(ii). 	If the
asylum officer determines that the alien has a credible claim, “the alien shall be detained for further
consideration of the application for asylum.” 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1)(B)(ii) (emphasis added). In
CASE 0:25-cv-04559-KMM-DJF Doc. 16 Filed 12/31/25 Page 3 of 7

other words, an alien who is otherwise subject to Section 1225(b)(1) and who applies for asylum
is subject to mandatory detention until the application is resolved.2 See Jennings, 583 U.S. at 297.
Section 1225(b)(2) “serves as a catchall provision” that applies to all other “applicants for
admission” who are not covered by Section 1226(b)(1) and who are actively “seeking admission”
into the United States. Jennings, 583 U.S. at 287; Belsai D.S., 2025 WL 2802947, at *6.
The Petition ought to be denied because Mr. Abdi is not being detained under Section
1225(b)(2); rather, he is being detained under Section 1225(b)(1). Border Patrol apprehended Mr.
Abdi seven miles from the United States-Mexico border within minutes of his crossing. (ECF No.
11-1 at 3-4.) He admitted that he entered the country “without the necessary legal documents to
enter, pass through, or remain.” 	(Id. at 4.) 	He thus was found inadmissible for lack of valid
documentation, had not been admitted or paroled into the United States, and could not show he
had been in the United States continuously for the 2-year period prior to his apprehension and
determination of inadmissibility. (Id.) Furthermore, the Attorney General has had a long-standing
policy of applying Section 1225(b)(1) to aliens who are encountered “within fourteen days of
arriving in the United States” and “within 100 air miles of a land border.” Make the Road New
York v. Noem, No. 25-5320, 2025 WL 3563313, at *2 (D.C.C. Nov. 22, 2025) (citing policy
2 To be clear, the Court does not find that all undocumented asylum applicants necessarily
are “seeking admission” within the meaning of Section 1225(b). Nor does the Court conclude that
all such asylum applicants are subject to detention pursuant to Section 1225(b)(1)(B)(ii). 	The
mandatory detention provision applies only to those undocumented asylum applicants who are
otherwise “arriving in the United States,” see 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1)(A)(ii), or who have not been
physically present in the United States continuously for the 2-year period immediately prior to the
date of determination of inadmissibility and have been designated by the Attorney General as
subject to Section 1225(b)(1), 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1)(A)(iii).
CASE 0:25-cv-04559-KMM-DJF Doc. 16 Filed 12/31/25 Page 4 of 7

statements).3 Mr. Abdi’s detention near the border falls within that designation. (See ECF No.
11-1 at 4, “[Mr. Abdi] was apprehended within 14 days of entering the United States and within
100 air miles of the United States/Mexico international boundary.”.) He was therefore subject to
mandatory detention and expedited removal under Section 1225(b)(1)(A)(iii) because he was
inadmissible, had not been admitted or paroled into the country, could not prove a continuous 2-
year presence prior to his apprehension, and the Attorney General had designated him as subject
to Section 1225(b)(1).
The expedited removal process was suspended because Mr. Abdi applied for asylum (ECF
No. 11 at 2). 	However, Section 1226(b)(1) unequivocally states that Mr. Abdi is subject to
mandatory 	detention 	while 	his 	asylum 	application 	is 	under 	consideration. 	8 	U.S.C. 	§
1225(b)(1)(B)(ii); see also Jennings, 583 U.S. at 287.
The fact that Mr. Abdi was released on “interim parole” (ECF No. 11 at 3) does not alter
the Court’s conclusion. Mr. Abdi appears to argue that because DHS placed him on parole under
an ATD program, the terms of Section 1225 no longer apply to him because his December 2025
arrest occurred within the interior of the United States, and not near the border during his entry
into the United States. 	(ECF No. 13 at 6-7.) 	But this interpretation of the statutory scheme is
contrary to its plain terms and structure. 	8 U.S.C. § 1182 (d)(5)(A) grants the Secretary of
Homeland Security the discretion to temporarily parole any alien “on a case-by-case basis for
urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit.” 	See also Jennings, 583 U.S. at 288
3 In January 2025, the Attorney General expanded the application of Section 1225(b)(1) by
eliminating the geographical and 14-day time limitation. 	See Designating Aliens for Expedited
Removal, 90 Fed. Reg. 8,139, 8140 (Jan. 24, 2025) (effective date Jan. 21, 2025). 	That policy
change is currently stayed pending an appeal to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.
See Make the Road New York, 2025 WL 3563313, at *3. 	Since the Court concludes Mr. Abdi
would be subject to Section 1225(b)(1) under the previous guidance, whether the policy change
survives judicial scrutiny or not is immaterial.
CASE 0:25-cv-04559-KMM-DJF Doc. 16 Filed 12/31/25 Page 5 of 7

(holding specifically that “applicants for admission [under Section 1225] may be temporarily
released on parole ‘for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit.’”). Section 1182
(d)(5)(A) further states that, “parole shall not be regarded as an admission of the alien and when
the purposes of such parole shall, in the opinion of the Secretary of Homeland Security, have been
served the alien shall forthwith return or be returned to the custody from which he was paroled
….” Id. (emphasis added). Thus, parole into an ATD program allows an alien to be released under
location monitoring or other conditions, but when that parole ends, he must be returned to the
custody he was in before parole was granted. Moreover, the statute states that once the alien is
returned to such custody “his case shall continue to be dealt with in the same manner as that of any
other applicant for admission to the United States.” 8 U.S.C. § 1182 (d)(5)(A) (emphasis added).
“Applicant for admission” is the phrase used in Section 1225 to define the universe of aliens who
are subject to its provisions. See 8 U.S.C. § 1225(a)(1). Use of this phrase makes intuitive sense
within the statutory structure. 	Section 1225 is meant to regulate the admission of aliens at the
border and ports of entry, many of whom are subject to mandatory detention if they lack valid
documents for admission. However, Congress recognized the need for exceptions and flexibility
and provided Section 1182(d)(5)(A) to allow DHS to release certain aliens who fall within this
mandatory detention scheme on a case-by-case basis. See Florida v. United States, 660 F.Supp.
3d 1239, 1280 (N.D. Fla. 2023) (concluding Section 1225(b) requires detention unless Section
1182(d)(5) is justifiably applied); Jennings, 583 U.S. at 288 (same). But parole does not move an
alien outside the scope of Section 1225; it merely suspends the statute’s detention mandate. When
CASE 0:25-cv-04559-KMM-DJF Doc. 16 Filed 12/31/25 Page 6 of 7

Mr. Abdi’s parole was terminated,4 he once again became subject to mandatory detention under
Section 1225(b)(1). The Court recommends the Petition be denied for these reasons.5
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the foregoing, and on all the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS
HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Petitioner Bashir Khalif Abdi’s Amended Petition for a Writ
of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 13) be DENIED.
Dated: December 31, 2025 	s/ Dulce J. Foster
Dulce J. Foster
United States Magistrate Judge
NOTICE
Filing Objections: This Report and Recommendation is not an order or judgment of the
District Court and is therefore not appealable directly to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Under Local Rule 72.2(b)(1), “a party may file and serve specific written objections to a
magistrate judge’s proposed finding and recommendations within 14 days after being served a
copy” of the Report and Recommendation. 	A party may respond to those objections within 14
days after being served a copy of the objections. See Local Rule 72.2(b)(2). All objections and
responses must comply with the word or line limits set forth in Local Rule 72.2(c).
4 The Court does not address whether revocation of Mr. Abdi’s interim parole satisfied the
dictates of the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause or other federal statutes, because he has
not raised those arguments. Cf. E.A.P.C. v. Wofford, 2025 WL 3289185, at *9-12 (E.D. Cal. Nov.
25, 2025) (granting preliminary injunction and ordering a parole revocation hearing); Y-Z-L-H v.
Bostock, 792 F. Supp. 3d 1123, 1143-47 (D. Or. 2025) (granting petition for writ of habeas corpus
and ordering defendants’ release on the ground that parole revocation violated the Administrative
Procedures Act).
5 Mr. Abdi’s contention that he is entitled to a bond hearing as a class member in
Maldonado Bautista v. Santacruz (ECF No. 13 at 9-11) is meritless because, for the foregoing
reasons, he is subject to detention under Section 1225(b)(1). See Maldonado, 2025 WL 3713987,
at *32 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2025) (defining the class as noncitizens in the United States without
lawful status who are not subject to detention under Section 1225(b)(1)).
CASE 0:25-cv-04559-KMM-DJF Doc. 16 Filed 12/31/25 Page 7 of 7