Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Brayan M., 	Case No. 26-cv-496 (MJD/DTS)
Petitioner,
v. 	REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Pamela Bondi, et al.,
Respondents.
INTRODUCTION
Petitioner Brayan M. is an Ecuadorian citizen who has resided in the United States
since January 2023. Pet. ¶ 13, Dkt. No. 1. On December 23, 2025, Brayan M. was
arrested by ICE and subsequently filed an application for asylum. Id. ¶ 14, 17. His
application for asylum remains pending, and he is presently detained at the Sherburne
County Jail. Id. ¶ 7, 14.
Brayan M. challenges his detention under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See id. ¶ 5. He claims
that the Government has unlawfully detained him pursuant to § 1225(b)(2) (a mandatory
detention statute) rather than § 1226 (a discretionary detention statute). Id. ¶ 30.
Immigrants detained under § 1226 are entitled to a bond hearing. See, e.g., Jose J.O.E.
v. Bondi, 797 F. Supp. 3d 957, 961–62 (D. Minn. 2025) (explaining the legal framework).
Brayan M. contends the Government’s misclassification of him as a § 1225(b)(2) detainee
violates the Immigration and Nationality Act and his constitutional rights. See Pet. ¶¶ 31-
47. He seeks a writ of habeas corpus requiring the Government to immediately release
him or provide a bond hearing under § 1226(a) within seven days. See id. at 15.
CASE 0:26-cv-00496-MJD-DTS Doc. 7 Filed 02/02/26 Page 1 of 3

2
The Government disagrees, arguing that § 1225(b)(2), not § 1226, governs Brayan
M.’s detention. See generally Gov.’s Resp. 1, Dkt. No. 5. This raises an issue of statutory
interpretation that this Court and others in this District have repeatedly considered and
rejected. Francisco T. v. Bondi, No. 25-cv-3219, 2025 WL 3490809 (D. Minn. Sept. 5,
2025) R. & R. adopted by 2025 WL 3236513 (D. Minn. Nov. 19, 2025); see also, e.g.,
Misael T. v. Bondi, No. 26-cv-263, 2026 WL 146510, at *2 (D. Minn. Jan. 20, 2026)
(collecting cases); Andres R.E. v. Bondi, No. 25-cv-3946, 2025 WL 3146312 (D. Minn.
Nov. 4, 2025). The Government concedes as much, acknowledging that “[t]his petition
raises legal and factual issues similar to those in prior habeas petitions this Court has
decided.” Gov.’s Resp. 1. Rather than restating its analysis here, the Court incorporates
its prior analysis by reference. See Francisco T., 2025 WL 3490809, at *3–11, R. & R.
adopted by 2025 WL 3236513. Because § 1226(a)’s discretionary detention framework,
not 	§ 	1225’s 	mandatory 	detention 	framework, 	applies 	to 	Brayan 	M., 	the 	Court
recommends granting the petition.1
RECOMMENDATION
For the reasons set forth above, the Court RECOMMENDS THAT:
1. 	Brayan M.’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Dkt. No. 1) be GRANTED;
2. 	The Government be ordered to issue an administrative warrant and provide
Brayan M. with a bond hearing pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226 within seven days;
3. 	The Government be ordered to release Brayan M. if it fails to issue an
administrative warrant and provide Brayan M. with a bond hearing;
1 Resolving this question in Brayan M.’s favor makes it unnecessary to address the
Petition’s alternative grounds.
CASE 0:26-cv-00496-MJD-DTS Doc. 7 Filed 02/02/26 Page 2 of 3

3
4. 	The Government be enjoined from denying Brayan M. a bond hearing on
the basis that 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) applies to him; and
5. 	The Government be ordered to report to the Court within seven days the
results of the bond hearing and/or whether Brayan M. has been released.
Dated: February 2, 2026 	s/ David T. Schultz__________
DAVID T. SCHULTZ
United States Magistrate Judge
NOTICE
Filing Objections: This Report and Recommendation is not an order or judgment of the
District Court. It is not appealable directly to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Under the circumstances of this case and Local Rule 72.2(b)(1), the parties may file and
serve specific written objections to this magistrate judge’s proposed findings and
recommendations within 2 days of the filing of the Report and Recommendation. A party
may respond to those objections within 2 days after being served a copy of the objections
without regard to weekends or holidays. 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).
CASE 0:26-cv-00496-MJD-DTS Doc. 7 Filed 02/02/26 Page 3 of 3