Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Mercy M.,
Petitioner,
v.
Pamela Bondi, Attorney General; Kristi
Noem, Secretary, U.S. Department of
Homeland Security; U.S. Department of
Homeland Security; Todd M. Lyons,
Acting Director of Immigration and
Customs Enforcement; and U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement,
Respondents.
File No. 26-cv-543 (ECT/EMB)
OPINION AND ORDER
Mary M. Nikolai, Gustafson Gluek PLLC, Minneapolis, MN, for Petitioner Mercy M.
Ana H. Voss and David W. Fuller, United States Attorney’s Office, Minneapolis, MN, for
Respondents Pamela Bondi, Kristi Noem, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Todd
M. Lyons, and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Petitioner Mercy M. is an Ecuadorian citizen who has lived in the United States
since November 2022. Pet. [ECF No. 1] ¶ 24. The Petition alleges, “[u]pon information
and belief,” that Mercy “entered the United States without inspection.” 	Id. ¶ 25. 	“Upon
entry, [Mercy] notified officials that she was seeking asylum,” and “[s]he filed a petition
for asylum shortly thereafter.” Id. Mercy “has a spotless criminal record.” Id. ¶ 28. On
January 21, 2026, Mercy was arrested as part of “Operation Metro Surge” by “five
individuals wearing facemasks and tactical vests” and “carrying firearms” as she was
driving home from the grocery store. Id. ¶¶ 29–30. “These men are believed to be agents
CASE 0:26-cv-00543-ECT-EMB Doc. 7 Filed 01/26/26 Page 1 of 6

2
of Respondent ICE.” 	Id. ¶ 29. 	At the time of her Petition’s filing, Mercy was “in the
physical custody of Respondents in a Detention Facility in Minnesota.” 	Id. ¶ 2.
Respondents state that Mercy is currently detained in in El Paso, Texas, having been
transferred for “bed-space reasons on January 21, 2026.” ECF No. 5 at 1 n.1. The Petition
asserts that Mercy is “a member of the Bond Denial Class certified in Maldonado Bautista
v. Santacruz, No. 5:25-CV-01873-SSS-BFM (C.D. Cal.).” Pet. ¶ 2.1
Mercy challenges her detention under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Pet. ¶ 13. She claims she
has been wrongly classified as a § 1225(b)(2) detainee (whose detention is mandatory)
rather than a § 1226(a) detainee (whose detention is discretionary and who is entitled to a
bond hearing). 	Pet. ¶¶ 42–72; see Jose J.O.E. v. Bondi, 797 F. Supp. 3d 957, 961–62
(D. Minn. 2025) (explaining legal framework). According to Mercy, that misclassification
and denial of a bond hearing violate her right to due process under the Fifth Amendment,
8 U.S.C. § 1226, and the Administrative Procedure Act. See Pet. ¶¶ 73–90. Mercy seeks
a declaration that she is a Bond Class Member under Maldonado Bautista, a declaration
that her arrest and detention violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, the
INA, and implementing regulations; issuance of an order enjoining Respondents from
transferring her out of the District of Minnesota, and if she has already been moved, an
order directing Respondents to return her to Minnesota; an order for her immediate release,
or in the alternative for a bond hearing; alternatively, issuance of a writ of habeas corpus
1 	Neither party provided the Court with Mercy’s Notice to Appear or the other
paperwork we’ve usually received in these cases. In this case, it doesn’t matter. In their
brief response to Mercy’s habeas petition, Respondents did not contest any of the facts
alleged in the Petition. See ECF No. 5.
CASE 0:26-cv-00543-ECT-EMB Doc. 7 Filed 01/26/26 Page 2 of 6

3
requiring her release unless she is provided a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a);
issuance of an order prohibiting Respondents from seeking a stay of any order granting
bond by the immigration judge; issuance of an order prohibiting Respondents from
re-detaining her without a “pre-deprivation hearing before this Court where the government
bears the burden of justifying re-detention by clear and convincing evidence”; and “any
other and further relief that this Court may deem just and proper.” Pet. at 22–23.
In a short response, Respondents state that Mercy’s petition “raises legal and factual
issues similar to those in prior habeas petitions this Court has decided,” and argues that the
petition fails on the merits for the same reasons set forth in the appeal of Avila v. Bondi,
No. 25-cv-3741 (JRT/SGE), 2025 WL 2976539 (D. Minn. Oct. 21, 2025), appeal docketed,
No. 25-3248 (8th Cir. Nov. 10, 2025). See ECF No. 5 at 1. 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.
Mercy 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 	To the extent Respondents challenge this Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction to
consider Mercy’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-00543-ECT-EMB Doc. 7 Filed 01/26/26 Page 3 of 6

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).
Mercy has lived in the United States for over three years. See Pet. ¶ 24. Her detention falls
under § 1226(a) and not § 1225(b)(2).3
The final issue is the appropriate remedy. 	Section 1226 provides that “[o]n a
warrant issued by the Attorney General, an alien may be arrested and detained.”
8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) (emphasis added). 	“Issuance of a warrant is a necessary condition to
justify 	discretionary 	detention 	under 	section 	1226(a).” 	Chogllo 	Chafla 	v.
Scott, --- F. Supp. 3d ---, No. 2:25-cv-00437, 2025 WL 2688541, at *11 (D. Me. Sep. 21,
2025), appeal filed (Nov. 7, 2025). 	“[I]t follows that absent a warrant a noncitizen may
not be arrested and detained under section 1226(a).” 	Id. (emphasis in original); accord
3 	Respondents do not argue that Mercy is subject to mandatory detention pursuant to
8 U.S.C. § 1226(c), nor do they argue that a statutory scheme other than that raised in the
Petition would apply to Mercy’s detention. See ECF No. 5; see also Pet. ¶ 45 (“Petitioner
has never been convicted of a crime that would bring Petitioner under the purview of
8 U.S.C. 1226(c).”).
CASE 0:26-cv-00543-ECT-EMB Doc. 7 Filed 01/26/26 Page 4 of 6

5
Chiliquinga Yumbillo v. Stamper, No. 2:25-cv-00479, 2025 WL 2783642, at *5 (D. Me.
Sep. 30, 2025); J.A.C.P. v. Wofford, No. 1:25-cv-01354, 2025 WL 3013328, at *8 (E.D.
Cal. Oct. 27, 2025); see also Florida v. United States, 660 F. Supp. 3d 1239, 1276 (N.D.
Fla. 2023) (stating § 1226 “is not even triggered unless an arrest warrant is issued” and that
“[i]f [an] alien has not been arrested on a warrant, then the subsequent provisions giving
the Attorney General discretion to detain or release ‘the arrested alien’ are likewise not
triggered”), appeal dismissed, 2023 WL 5212561 (11th Cir. July 11, 2023). 	Here,
Respondents were ordered to include in their Answer “[w]hether the absence of a warrant
preceding Petitioner’s arrest necessitates Petitioner’s immediate release.” See ECF No. 3
at 2. 	Respondents have not produced a warrant, nor have they advanced any specific
argument that Mercy’s release is an unwarranted remedy. See ECF No. 5.
“[R]elease is an available and appropriate remedy” for “detention that lacks a lawful
predicate.” 	Order on Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus at 6, Vedat C. v. Bondi, No.
25-cv-4642 (JWB/DTS) (D. Minn. Dec. 19, 2025), ECF No. 9 (citing Munaf v. Geren,
553 U.S. 674, 693 (2008)). 	“Where the record shows Respondents have not identified a
valid statutory basis for detention in the first place, the remedy is not to supply one through
further proceedings.” 	Id.; see Chogllo Chafla, --- F. Supp. 3d ---, 2025 WL 2688541, at
*11 (“Since the Government did not comply with the plain language of section 1226(a),
[petitioners’] immediate release is justified.”); J.A.C.P., 2025 WL 3013328, at *8 (same);
Chiliquinga Yumbillo, 2025 WL 2783642, at *5 (reaching same conclusion); see also
CASE 0:26-cv-00543-ECT-EMB Doc. 7 Filed 01/26/26 Page 5 of 6

6
Munaf, 553 U.S. at 693 (“Habeas is at its core a remedy for unlawful executive detention.
The typical remedy for such detention is, of course, release.” (citation modified)).4
ORDER
Therefore, based on the foregoing, and on all the files, records, and proceedings
herein, IT IS ORDERED THAT Petitioner Mercy M.’s Verified 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).
2. 	As soon as practicable, but not later than 72 hours after entry of this Order,
Respondents shall return Petitioner to Minnesota and then release Petitioner from custody.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: January 26, 2026, at 7:20 p.m. 	s/ Eric C. Tostrud
Eric C. Tostrud
United States District Court
4 	The resolution of this statutory-interpretation question in Mercy’s favor makes it
unnecessary to address the Petition’s remaining grounds.
CASE 0:26-cv-00543-ECT-EMB Doc. 7 Filed 01/26/26 Page 6 of 6