Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Juan R.,
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; David
Easterwood, Acting Director, St. Paul
Field Office, Immigration and Customs
Enforcement; and Ryan Shea, Sheriff of
Freeborn County,
Respondents.
No. 26-cv-252 (SRN/DTS)
ORDER
David L. Wilson and Olivia Anderson-Petroske, Wilson Law Group, 3019 Minnehaha
Ave., Minneapolis, MN 55406, for Petitioner
Ana Voss, U.S. Attorney’s Office, 300 S. 4th St., Minneapolis, MN 55415, for United
States’ Respondents
David John Walker, Freeborn County Attorney’s Office, Freeborn County Government
Center, 411 S. Broadway Ave., Albert Lea, MN 56007, for Respondent Ryan Shea
SUSAN RICHARD NELSON, United States District Judge
Before the Court is the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”) [Doc. No.
1] filed by Petitioner Juan R., who seeks immediate release from detention or, in the
CASE 0:26-cv-00252-SRN-DTS Doc. 8 Filed 01/16/26 Page 1 of 7

2
alternative, an opportunity for a bond hearing pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). Respondents
oppose the Petition. (Resp’ts’ Opp’n [Doc. No. 4].)
The Court has taken the Petition under advisement on the papers. For the reasons set
forth below, the Petition is granted and the Court orders Juan R. to be released.
I. 	BACKGROUND
Petitioner is a citizen of Mexico. 	(Pet. ¶¶ 13, 29.) 	He entered the United States
without inspection in 2007. (Id. ¶ 29.) He had no contact with immigration authorities at the
time of his entry. (Id. ¶ 30.) He has now been in the United States for nearly 19 years. (Id. ¶ 31.)
Petitioner states that he has no criminal history that subjects him to mandatory detention under 8
U.S.C. § 1226(c). (Id. ¶ 35.)
On December 31, 2025, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) officers
took Petitioner into custody. (Id. ¶ 32.) He is presently held in immigration detention in
Albert Lea, Minnesota. (Id. ¶ 36.)
Respondents contend that Petitioner is subject to mandatory detention under §
1225(b)(2) and is therefore not entitled to a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). Their
position is consistent with new interim guidance from the Department of Homeland
Security (“DHS”)/ICE, and a recent decision from the Board of Immigration Appeals
(“BIA”) finding that all persons who enter the United States without inspection, including
those who have been residing here for some time, are “applicants for admission” under 8
U.S.C. § 1225(a), subject to mandatory detention, rather than discretionary detention under
§ 1226(a). 	Maldonado v. Olson, 795 F. Supp. 3d 1134, 1150 (D. Minn. 2025) (noting
interim guidance); Matter of Yajure Hurtado, 29 I. & N. Dec. 216 (BIA 2025).
CASE 0:26-cv-00252-SRN-DTS Doc. 8 Filed 01/16/26 Page 2 of 7

3
After his arrest, Petitioner filed the instant Petition, asserting that he is entitled to
immediate release or a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), at which an immigration
judge can assess whether he poses a flight risk or a danger to the community. (Pet. ¶¶ 1–
7, 63–69.)
Respondents disagree. 	In their one-paragraph response, they invoke their prior
positions, as set forth in Avila v. Bondi, No. 25-3248 (8th Cir. Nov. 10, 2025), currently
pending before the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. 	(Resp’ts’ Opp’n at 1.) 	It is their
position that as a matter of statutory interpretation, Petitioner falls under the provisions of
8 U.S.C. § 1225, not § 1226, and therefore, is not entitled to a bond hearing or release.
They concede that the instant Petition raises legal and factual issues similar to those in prior
habeas petitions this Court has decided.1 (Id.)
1 Respondents do not challenge subject matter jurisdiction or administrative exhaustion.
Nevertheless, the Court briefly addresses these issues. As to jurisdiction, the Court finds
that none of the jurisdiction-stripping provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1252 apply to the question
of whether mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2) or discretionary detention under §
1226(a) applies. See Maldonado v. Olson, 795 F. Supp. 3d 1134 (D. Minn. 2025).
As to exhaustion, requiring administrative exhaustion would be futile in light of Hurtado.
See Ortiz v. Freden, --- F. Supp. 3d ---, No. 25-CV-960-LJV, 2025 WL 3085032, at *5
(W.D.N.Y. Nov. 4. 2025) (finding exhaustion of remedies would be futile, even if
petitioner had not exhausted his remedies). Immigration judges would be obliged to follow
Hurtado’s ruling on the scope of § 1225(b)(2)(A).
CASE 0:26-cv-00252-SRN-DTS Doc. 8 Filed 01/16/26 Page 3 of 7

4
II. 	DISCUSSION
While the parties dispute whether 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) or § 1226(a) of the INA
applies to a noncitizen who is already residing in the United States, there is no dispute that
Petitioner was arrested while already residing in the United States.
This Court has previously found, along with the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals—
the only circuit court to have addressed the issue—and the vast majority of district courts
throughout the country, that the applicable detention scheme for noncitizens already
residing in the country is under § 1226(a), absent any exceptions under § 1226(c).
Maldonado v. Olson, 795 F. Supp. 3d 1134 (D. Minn. 2025), E.M. v. Noem, No. 25-cv-
3975 (SRN/DTS), 2025 WL 3157839 (D. Minn. Nov. 12, 2025); Castañon-Nava v. U.S.
Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 161 F.4th 1048, 1060–62 (7th Cir. 2025); see also Demirel v. Fed.
Detention Ctr., No. 25-5488, 2025 WL 3218243, at *4 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 18, 2025) (collecting
cases); Reyes v. Raycraft, No. 25-12546, 2025 WL 2609425, at *6–7 (E. D. Mich. Sept. 9,
2024) (collecting cases); Yulexi T. v. Noem, No. 26-cv-68 (ECT/DTS), 2026 WL 77022, at
*2 (D. Minn. Jan. 10, 2026); Kelvin N. v. Bondi, No. 26-CV-32 (JMB/JFD), 2026 WL
63423, at *2–3 (D. Minn. Jan. 8, 2026); Iishaar-Abdi v. Klang, No. 25-CV-4686
(JRT/DTS), 2025 WL 3764853, at *1 (D. Minn. Dec. 30, 2025); Awaale v. Noem, No. 25-
cv-4551 (MJD/JFD), 2025 WL 3754012, at *1 (D. Minn. Dec. 29, 2025); Hugo v. Olson,
No. 25-cv-4593 (LMP/DTS), 2025 WL 3688074, at *2–3 (D. Minn. Dec. 19, 2025); Lionel
V.F. v. Bondi, No. 25-cv-4474 (PJS/LIB), 2025 WL 3485600, at *1 (D. Minn. Dec. 4,
2025). 	By contrast, § 1225(b)(2) applies to noncitizens at or near the border. 	Ortiz v.
Freden, --- F. Supp. 3d ---, No. 25-CV-960-LJV, 2025 WL 3085032, at *10 (W.D.N.Y.
CASE 0:26-cv-00252-SRN-DTS Doc. 8 Filed 01/16/26 Page 4 of 7

5
Nov. 4. 2025). Respondents do not assert that any of the exceptions under § 1226(c) apply.
The 	Court 	remains 	unpersuaded 	by 	Respondents’ 	statutory 	interpretation 	of 	§§
1225(b)(2)(A), but notes that Respondents’ arguments are preserved for appeal.
Having determined that § 1225(b) is 	inapplicable to 	Petitioner, 	who would
otherwise fall under § 1226(a), the Court turns to the appropriate remedy. Section 1226(a)
provides that “[o]n a warrant issued by the Attorney General, an alien may be arrested and
detained pending a decision on whether the alien is to be removed from the United States.”
8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) (emphasis added). The statute requires the issuance of a warrant as a
precursor to detention under § 1226(a). Ahmed M. v. Bondi, No. 25-cv-4711 (ECT/SGE),
2026 WL 25627, at *3 (D. Minn. Jan. 5, 2026) (citing Chogllo Chafla v. Scott, --- F. Supp.
3d ---, 2025 WL 2688541, at *11 (D. Me. Sept. 21, 2025), appeal filed (Nov. 6, 2025);
J.A.C.P. v. Wofford, No. 1:25-cv-01354-KES-SKO (HC), 2025 WL 3013328, at *8 (E.D.
Cal. Oct. 27, 2025)). “[I]t follows that absent a warrant a noncitizen may not be arrested
and detained under section 1226(a).” Chogllo Chafla, 2025 WL 2688541, at *11 (emphasis
in original).
Petitioner alleges that he was arrested and detained without a warrant and he
requests immediate release. (Pet., Prayer for Relief ¶ 5.) Respondents have not produced
a warrant, nor any other documentation supporting Petitioner’s detention. Section 1226(a)
requires, in the first instance, that Petitioner’s arrest and detention are authorized by the
issuance of a warrant. 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a); Vedat C. v. Bondi, No. 25-cv-4642 (JWB/DTS)
(D. Minn. Dec. 19, 2025). Again, Respondents have failed to produce, much less address,
CASE 0:26-cv-00252-SRN-DTS Doc. 8 Filed 01/16/26 Page 5 of 7

6
§ 1226(a)’s warrant requirement here. 	Petitioner’s arrest and detention are therefore
unauthorized.
As other judges in this District have found, the appropriate remedy for detention
that lacks a proper statutory basis under § 1226(a) is release. Ahmed M., 2026 WL 25627,
at *3 (finding release the appropriate remedy where Respondents did not produce a
warrant); Juan S.R. v. Bondi, No. 26-cv-0005 (PJS/LIB) (D. Minn. Jan. 12, 2026) [Doc.
No. 8 at 3–4] (following the reasoning of Ahmed M. and ordering immediate release where
Respondents failed to present evidence of a warrant); Vedat C. v. Bondi, No. 25-cv-4642
(JWB/DTS) (D. Minn. Dec. 19, 2025) [Doc. No. 9] at 6] (“[A] bond hearing presupposes
lawful detention authority under § 1226. 	Where that authority has not been invoked or
established, ordering a bond hearing would treat the absence of statutory power as a mere
procedural irregularity rather than a substantive defect.”). “Habeas relief . . . addresses the
lawfulness of custody itself,” and “[f]or detention that lacks a lawful predicate, release is
an available and appropriate remedy.” Vedat C., No. 25-cv-4642 (JWB/DTS) (D. Minn.
Dec. 19, 2025) [Doc. No. 9] at 6]. Accordingly, Respondents shall release Petitioner from
custody.
III. 	ORDER
Based on the submissions and the entire file and proceedings herein, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED that
1. 	Petitioner Juan R.’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus [Doc. No. 1] is
GRANTED.
2. 	Respondents shall release Petitioner from custody IMMEDIATELY, but no
later than within 48 hours.
CASE 0:26-cv-00252-SRN-DTS Doc. 8 Filed 01/16/26 Page 6 of 7

7
3. 	Respondents shall confirm Petitioner’s release within 48 hours from the date of
this Order.
4. 	Respondents may not re-detain Petitioner under a statutory theory this Court has
rejected in this proceeding absent materially changed circumstances.
Dated: January 16, 2026 	s/Susan Richard Nelson
SUSAN RICHARD NELSON
United States District Judge
CASE 0:26-cv-00252-SRN-DTS Doc. 8 Filed 01/16/26 Page 7 of 7