Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Jessica C.,
Petitioner,
v.
Pamela Bondi, Attorney General; Kristi
Noem, Secretary, U.S. Department of
Homeland Security; Department of
Homeland Security; Todd M. Lyons, Acting
Director of Immigration and Customs
Enforcement; Immigration and Customs
Enforcement; Daren K. Margolin, Director
for Executive Office for Immigration
Review; Executive Office for Immigration
Review; Peter Berg, Director, Fort Snelling
Field Office Immigration and Customs
Enforcement; and Joel Brott, Sheriff of
Sherburne County,
Respondents.
File No. 26-cv-85 (ECT/LIB)
OPINION AND ORDER
Maria Miller, Martin Law, Bloomington, MN, for Petitioner Jessica C.
Ana H. Voss and Justin Merak Page, United States Attorney’s Office, Minneapolis, MN,
for Respondents Pamela Bondi, Kristi Noem, Department of Homeland Security, Todd M.
Lyons, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Daren K. Margolin, Executive Office for
Immigration Review, and Peter Berg.
Petitioner Jessica C. is an El Salvadoran citizen who has lived in the United States
without authorization since September 2014, when she entered the country without
inspection. 	See Pet. [ECF No. 1] ¶¶ 14, 32–33. 	Jessica did not have contact with
CASE 0:26-cv-00085-ECT-LIB Doc. 6 Filed 01/15/26 Page 1 of 5

2
immigration authorities upon entering the United States. Id. ¶ 34. The Petition alleges, on
information and belief, that “the Department of Homeland Security initiated removal
proceedings [against] [Jessica] by filing a Notice to Appear with the Immigration Court on
an unknown date in the past.” Id. ¶ 35. On April 30, 2024, the immigration court dismissed
Jessica’s removal proceedings “in an exercise of prosecutorial discretion.” Id. Jessica was
taken into custody on January 4, 2026. 	Id. ¶ 36. 	She is currently in custody at the
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) detention facility in Elk River, Minnesota.
Id. ¶¶ 13–14. According to the Petition, “Respondents maintain that Jessica is not eligible
to seek a bond redetermination hearing consistent with § 1226” and that she instead “is
subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2).”1 Pet. ¶¶ 37–38.
Jessica challenges her detention under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Pet. ¶ 7. She claims she
has been wrongly classified as a § 1225(b)(2) detainee (whose detention is mandatory)
rather than a § 1226 detainee (whose detention is discretionary and who is entitled to a
bond hearing). Id. ¶¶ 39–67, 79–86; see Jose J.O.E. v. Bondi, 797 F. Supp. 3d 957, 961–
62 	(D. Minn. 	2025) 	(explaining 	legal 	framework). 	According 	to 	Jessica, 	that
misclassification and denial of a bond hearing violate her right to due process under the
Fifth Amendment, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1225(b)(2) and 1226(a), the Administrative Procedures Act,
and § 1226’s implementing regulations. 	See Pet. ¶¶ 79–98. 	She seeks a declaration that
her detention is unlawful under the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause; issuance of a
1 	Neither party provided the Court with Jessica’s Notice to Appear or the other
paperwork we’ve usually received in these cases. In this case, it doesn’t matter. In their
very brief response to Jessica’s habeas petition, Respondents did not contest any of the
facts alleged in the Petition. See ECF No. 5.
CASE 0:26-cv-00085-ECT-LIB Doc. 6 Filed 01/15/26 Page 2 of 5

3
writ of habeas corpus ordering Respondents to set a bond hearing for her pursuant to
8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) or the Due Process Clause; an order finding Respondents’ decision
violates the Administrative Procedures Act; an order enjoining her removal or transfer out
of the District of Minnesota during the pendency of this case; and an award of attorneys’
fees and costs. Pet. at 30–31.
Respondents2 argue that the petition fails on the merits as a matter of statutory
interpretation.3 	See ECF No. 5 (incorporating “all arguments raised by the government in
Avila v. Bondi, No. 25-cv-3248 (8th Cir. Docketed Nov. 10, 2025)”). Courts in this District
have repeatedly considered and rejected Respondents’ arguments, and they will be rejected
here as well.
Jessica has shown she has been misclassified under § 1225(b)(2) rather than § 1226.
As courts have explained, the former statute applies to applicants “seeking admission,” and
the latter to “aliens already in the country.” 	8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A); Jennings v.
Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281, 289 (2018) (construing 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and (c)); see
Francisco T. v. Bondi, 797 F. Supp. 3d 970, 974–76 (D. Minn. 2025); Belsai D.S. v. Bondi,
2 	When used in this Order, “Respondents” refers to the federal officials named as
Respondents. 	Respondent Joel Brott, the Sherburne County Sheriff, has not appeared or
otherwise participated in these proceedings. See Dkt.
3 	Respondents do not specifically challenge this Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction to
consider Jessica’s petition. See ECF No. 5. Nonetheless, consistent with previous rulings
on this issue, I find that the jurisdiction-stripping provisions of § 1252(a)(5), (b)(9), and
(g) do not apply to “the narrow question whether a noncitizen is subject to discretionary
detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226 or mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2).” 	Fernando
F.P.D. v. Brott, No. 25-cv-4455 (ECT/ECW), 2025 WL 3675151, at *2 (D. Minn. Dec. 17,
2025) (citing cases).
CASE 0:26-cv-00085-ECT-LIB Doc. 6 Filed 01/15/26 Page 3 of 5

4
--- F. Supp. 3d ---, No. 25-cv-3682 (KMM/EMB), 2025 WL 2802947, at *6–7 (D. Minn.
Oct. 1, 2025); Eliseo A.A. v. Olson, --- F. Supp. 3d ---, No. 25-cv-3381 (JWB/DJF), 2025
WL 2886729, at *2–4 (D. Minn. Oct. 8, 2025); Avila v. Bondi, No. 25-cv-3741 (JRT/SGE),
2025 WL 2976539, at *5–7 (D. Minn. Oct. 21, 2025), appeal filed, No. 25-3248 (8th Cir.
Nov. 10, 2025); Andres R.E. v. Bondi, No. 25-cv-3946 (NEB/DLM), 2025 WL 3146312,
at *2–3 (D. Minn. Nov. 4, 2025); E.M. v. Noem, 25-cv-3975 (SRN/DTS), 2025 WL
3157839, at *4–8 (D. Minn. Nov. 12, 2025); Santos M.C. v. Olson, No. 25-cv-4264
(PJS/DJF), 2025 WL 3281787, at *2–3 (D. Minn. Nov. 25, 2025). As of this writing, only
one federal court of appeals has ruled on the question, and it reached the same conclusion.
See Castañon-Nava v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 161 F.4th 1048 (7th Cir. 2025).
Jessica has lived in the United States for more than eleven years. Her detention falls under
§ 1226 and not § 1225(b)(2).
For these reasons, Jessica is subject to discretionary detention and entitled to a bond
hearing.
ORDER
Therefore, based on the foregoing, and on all the files, records, and proceedings
herein, IT IS ORDERED THAT Petitioner Jessica C.’s Verified Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus [ECF No. 1] is GRANTED as follows:
1. 	The Court DECLARES that Petitioner is not subject to mandatory detention
under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2), and is instead subject to detention, if at all, pursuant to the
discretionary provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1226.
CASE 0:26-cv-00085-ECT-LIB Doc. 6 Filed 01/15/26 Page 4 of 5

5
2. 	Respondents are ENJOINED from denying Petitioner a bond hearing on the
basis that 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) applies to Petitioner, and Respondents shall provide
Petitioner with a bond hearing in accordance with 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a)(2)(A).
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: January 15, 2026 	s/ Eric C. Tostrud
Eric C. Tostrud
United States District Court
CASE 0:26-cv-00085-ECT-LIB Doc. 6 Filed 01/15/26 Page 5 of 5