Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Inaldo L.,
Petitioner,
v.
Kristi Noem, in her official capacity as
Secretary of the U.S. Department of
Homeland Security; Todd Lyons, in his
official capacity as Acting Director of
Immigration and Customs Enforcement;
David Easterwood, in his official capacity as
Acting Director, St. Paul Field Office,
Immigration and Customs Enforcement; and
Eric Tollefson, Sheriff of Kandiyohi County,
Minnesota, in his official capacity as
custodiam of detainees of the Kandiyohi
County Jail,
Respondents.
File No. 26-cv-142 (ECT/SGE)
OPINION AND ORDER
Sara Larson Glesne, Ojala-Barbour Law Firm, St. Paul, MN, for Petitioner Inaldo L.
Ana H. Voss and Friedrich A.P. Siekert, United States Attorney’s Office, Minneapolis,
MN, for Respondents Kristi Noem, David Easterwood, and Todd Lyons.
Petitioner Inaldo L. is a Brazilian citizen who has lived in the United States since
on or about June 15, 2021, when he entered the country without inspection. See Pet. [ECF
No. 1] ¶¶ 1, 16, 28–29; ECF No. 1-1 at 1; ECF No. 6 ¶ 6. 	“Upon his 2021 entry to the
United States, [Inaldo] was arrested and detained by the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS).” 	Pet. ¶ 2. 	On June 16, 2021, United States Border Patrol served Inaldo with a
CASE 0:26-cv-00142-ECT-SGE Doc. 8 Filed 01/21/26 Page 1 of 6

2
Notice to Appear, Form I-862, charging him as subject to removal under Section
212(a)(6)(A)(i) 	of 	the 	Immigration 	and 	Nationality 	Act 	(codified 	under 	8 	U.S.C.
§ 1182(a)(6)(A)(i)) as “an alien present in the United States without being admitted or
paroled, or who arrived in the United States at any time or place other than as designated
by the Attorney General.” ECF No. 1-1 at 1; ECF No. 6 ¶ 6. The Notice to Appear stated
that Inaldo was “an alien present in the United States who has not been admitted or
paroled.” ECF No. 1-1 at 1. It did not check the box for “an arriving alien.” See id. On
that same day, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) “released
[Inaldo] on an Order of [Release on] Recognizance (‘OREC’).” ECF No. 6 ¶ 7; ECF No.
6-3; accord Pet. ¶ 2. 	The OREC stated that “[i]n accordance with section 236 of the
Immigration and Nationality Act,” which is codified under 8 U.S.C. § 1226, “and the
applicable provisions of Title 8 of the Code of Federal Regulations, you are being released
on your own recognizance provided you comply with [certain enumerated] conditions.”
ECF No. 6-3 at 1. 	“To date, [Inaldo] has not violated any of these conditions nor have
Respondents1 alleged a specific violation of the OREC to justify his recent re-detention.”
Pet. ¶ 3. “Following [Inaldo’s] release from DHS custody, [Inaldo] was issued a Notice to
Appear and was placed in full removal proceedings pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1229a.” Id. ¶
4; accord id. ¶ 30. On March 12, 2024, Inaldo “filed a Form I-589, Application for Asylum
and for Withholding of Removal.” Id. ¶ 5. On May 8, 2025, Inaldo “was denied all forms
1 	When used in this Order, “Respondents” refers to the federal officials named as
Respondents. Respondent Eric Tollefson, the Kandiyohi County Sheriff, has not appeared
in these proceedings. See Dkt.
CASE 0:26-cv-00142-ECT-SGE Doc. 8 Filed 01/21/26 Page 2 of 6

3
of relief in an oral decision by an [immigration judge] at the Fort Snelling Immigration
Court.” 	Id. 	Inaldo was ordered removable pursuant to section 212(a)(6)(A)(i) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act, codified under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i). ECF No. 6-
4 at 1. 	On June 6, 2026, Inaldo “timely filed a Notice to Appeal before the [Board of
Immigration Appeals],” and his appeal “remains pending.” Pet. ¶ 5; accord ECF No. 6 ¶
9. 	Inaldo “has no criminal history.” 	Pet. ¶ 5. 	ICE detained Petitioner on or about
December 31, 2025. Pet. ¶¶ 6, 16; ECF No. 6 ¶ 10. He “was not detained for violating any
of the conditions of his OREC.” 	Pet. ¶ 6. 	Inaldo is currently detained at the Kandiyohi
County Jail in Willmar, Minnesota. Pet. ¶¶ 6, 16; ECF No. 6 ¶ 11.
Here, Inaldo challenges his detention under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Pet. ¶ 13. He claims
he has been wrongly classified as an 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) detainee (whose detention is
mandatory) rather than an 8 U.S.C. § 1226 detainee (whose detention is discretionary and
who is entitled to a bond hearing). Id. ¶¶ 35–50; see Jose J.O.E. v. Bondi, 797 F. Supp. 3d
957, 961–62 (D. Minn. 2025) (explaining legal framework). 	According to Inaldo, that
misclassification and denial of a bond hearing violate his right to due process under the
Fifth Amendment, the Administrative Procedure Act, and 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). 	Pet.
¶¶ 51–64. 	He 	seeks 	a 	declaration 	that 	his 	detention 	without 	an 	individualized
determination for revocation of his order of release on recognizance is unlawful; issuance
of 	a 	writ 	of 	habeas 	corpus 	ordering 	Respondents 	to 	immediately 	release 	him 	or,
alternatively, set a bond hearing pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a); an order enjoining his
transfer out of the District of Minnesota; attorneys’ fees and costs; and “any further relief
that this court deems to be just and proper.” Pet. at 22–23.
CASE 0:26-cv-00142-ECT-SGE Doc. 8 Filed 01/21/26 Page 3 of 6

4
Acknowledging that “this case presents similar legal and factual issues to prior
habeas petitions,” ECF No. 5 at 8, Respondents argue that Inaldo is subject to mandatory
detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). 	See ECF No. 5 at 8–15. 	This raises an issue of
statutory interpretation2 that courts in this District have repeatedly considered and rejected,
and it will be rejected here as well.
Inaldo has shown he 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,
--- 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
2 	To the extent Respondents challenge this Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction to
consider Inaldo’s petition, 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-00142-ECT-SGE Doc. 8 Filed 01/21/26 Page 4 of 6

5
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). Inaldo
has lived in the United States for more than four years. His detention falls under § 1226
and not § 1225(b)(2).
One final issue deserves discussion. 	Respondents attempt to factually distinguish
this Court’s decision in Fernando F.P.D. v. Brott, No. 25-cv-4455 (ECT/ECW), 2025 WL
3675151, at *1 (D. Minn. Dec. 17, 2025), on the grounds that in Fernando, “there was no
final order of removal at the time of that petitioner’s detention giving rise to the case.”
ECF No. 5 at 9. 	Yet on that same page, Respondents affirmatively acknowledge that
Inaldo’s “removal order is not yet final pending final action by the BIA.” See id.; see also
ECF No. 6 ¶ 9 (stating that Inaldo’s “appeal is pending”). 	Thus, to the extent that
Respondents suggest that Inaldo is subject to a final order of removal that would perhaps
alter the legal analysis here, there is no record evidence to support that premise. 	See 8
C.F.R. § 1241.1 (specifying when an order of removal becomes final).
For these reasons, Inaldo is subject to discretionary detention and entitled to a bond
hearing.3
3 	In his reply, Inaldo argues for the first time that he is entitled to release “[b]ecause
Respondents have failed to demonstrate that any . . . warrant has been issued,” and as a
result, “there is . . . no lawful basis to justify Respondents’ ongoing detention of [Inaldo].”
ECF No. 7 at 1 n.1. 	The Petition does not allege that Inaldo was not provided with a
warrant, see Pet., and thus his argument raised for the first time in reply will not be
considered. The resolution of this statutory-interpretation question in Inaldo’s favor makes
it unnecessary to address the Petition’s remaining grounds.
CASE 0:26-cv-00142-ECT-SGE Doc. 8 Filed 01/21/26 Page 5 of 6

6
ORDER
Therefore, based on the foregoing, and on all the files, records, and proceedings
herein, IT IS ORDERED THAT Petitioner Inaldo L.’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
[ECF No. 1] is GRANTED as follows:
1. 	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.
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 21, 2026 	s/ Eric C. Tostrud
Eric C. Tostrud
United States District Court
CASE 0:26-cv-00142-ECT-SGE Doc. 8 Filed 01/21/26 Page 6 of 6