Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Segundo Eduardo C.C.,
Petitioner,
v.
Pam Bondi, et al.,
Respondents.
No. 26-cv-557 (KMM/DJF)
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Segundo Eduardo C.C.’s Petition for a
Writ of Habeas Corpus. [Dkt. 1.] For the reasons below, the Court grants the habeas
petition.
Background
Segundo Eduardo C.C. is a citizen of Ecuador. [Id. ¶ 3.] He has lived in the United
States since October 4, 2023. [Id. ¶ 3.] Petitioner was detained by ICE in October 2023
within the interior of the United States and was released from custody. [Id. ¶ 47.] Segundo
Eduardo C.C. has not been arrested or otherwise violated the terms of his pervious release
from ICE custody. [Id.] Segundo Eduardo C.C.’s wife filed an asylum application on
August 12, 2024, with him included as a derivative beneficiary. [Id. ¶ 48.] That application
remains pending. [Id.] On January 22, 2026, Segundo Eduardo C.C. was arrested by
immigration officers while attending an appointment for his ICE supervision program. [Id.
¶ 49.] There is no evidence that he has been afforded a bond hearing since. [Id. ¶ 51.]
Respondents’ position is that Segundo Eduardo C.C. is subject to mandatory detention
CASE 0:26-cv-00557-KMM-DJF Doc. 6 Filed 01/25/26 Page 1 of 4

2
pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2), and they point to no other statutory or legal basis for his
detention. [Dkt. 5 at 1–2.]
Analysis
A court may issue a writ of habeas corpus if a person “is in custody in violation of
the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). And
district courts have authority to grant writs of habeas corpus “within their respective
jurisdictions.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a). That power “includes jurisdiction to hear habeas
challenges to immigration-related detention.” Jose J.O.E. v. Bondi, 797 F. Supp. 3d 957,
965 (D. Minn. 2025). “The burden is on the petitioner to prove illegal detention by a
preponderance of the evidence.” Id.
This case is one of many filed in recent months in this district challenging the
application of § 1225(b)(2) to aliens who are already in the United States, either having
entered without inspection or having been previously released pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226.
This Court has previously held that, because such people are not “seeking admission,” as
set forth in § 1225(b)(2), that provision—which mandates detention—does not apply to
them. See, e.g., Belsai D.S. v. Bondi, No. 25-cv-03682 (KMM/EMB), 2025 WL 2802947
(D. Minn. Oct. 1, 2025). The same legal conclusion has been adopted by countless district
courts around the country in similar cases, by the only Court of Appeals to have addressed
the issue, and by many courts in this district. Respondents’ position is that Belsai D.S. and
the many other cases reaching the same conclusion were wrongly decided. Respondents
also point out that the underlying legal issue is pending before the Eighth Circuit and that
they wish to preserve their position for appeal.
CASE 0:26-cv-00557-KMM-DJF Doc. 6 Filed 01/25/26 Page 2 of 4

3
Although the Court has considered the arguments raised by the government, and
reviewed the authority cited in this and in other cases, the Court declines to repudiate its
analysis from Belsai D.S. and instead continues to follow the analysis of the majority of
courts to have considered the matter. Of course, these issues are complex, and Respondents’
arguments are not frivolous. But the Court continues to believe that the better reading of
the relevant statutory scheme is that § 1225(b)(2) does not apply to Segundo Eduardo C.C.
or others who are similarly situated, and his mandatory detention under that provision is
not supported by the law.
The Court further concludes that immediate release is the appropriate remedy. The
government has not claimed to have a “warrant issued by the Attorney General” supporting
Petitioner’s recent arrest, nor has the government produced one to the Court. As U.S.
District Judge Eric Tostrud recently explained, “[s]ection 1226 provides that ‘[o]n a
warrant issued by the Attorney General, an alien may be arrested and detained.’” Ahmed
M. v. Bondi et al., 25-CV-4711 (ECT/SGE), 2026 WL 25627, at *3 (D. Minn. Jan. 5, 2026).
Judge Tostrud concluded that the issuance of a warrant is a necessary prerequisite to even
discretionary detention under § 1226(a), citing several decisions from other districts. Id. In
Ahmed M., the petitioner had been rearrested with no warrant and no allegation of a
violation of the conditions of his previous release. Therefore, the appropriate remedy in
Ahmed M. was immediate release rather than a detention hearing. See also Juan S.R. v.
Bondi, 26-cv-05 (PJS/LIB) (Order (Dkt. 8) Jan. 12, 2026) (same).
The Court agrees with the reasoning of these cases. Despite the Court seeking a
specific response on this issue in the Order to Show Cause [Dkt. 3 ¶ 2e], Respondents point
CASE 0:26-cv-00557-KMM-DJF Doc. 6 Filed 01/25/26 Page 3 of 4

4
to neither a warrant supporting the applicability of § 1226(a) to Segundo Eduardo C.C.,
nor any other statutory basis for a bond hearing, so immediate release is required.
ORDER
Based on the above, and on the full record before the Court, IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED THAT:
1. 	Petitioner Segundo Eduardo C.C.’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus [Dkt.
1] is GRANTED.
2. 	The Court DECLARES that Petitioner is not subject to mandatory detention
under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) and ENJOINS Respondents from denying release
or other relief on the basis that he is subject to such mandatory detention.
3. 	The Court ORDERS Respondents to immediately release Segundo Eduardo
C.C. The Court has been informed that Petitioner was transferred out of the
District of Minnesota but is being returned to the District, in compliance with
the Court’s Order to Show Cause [Dkt. 7]. Therefore, the Court assumes that
Segundo Eduardo C.C. will be promptly released in Minnesota.
4. 	Finally, the Court ORDERS Respondents to notify the Court and opposing
counsel within 24 hours of Petitioner’s release, confirming that the release has
occurred. If Segundo Eduardo C.C. has not been returned as previously ordered,
Respondents should immediately notify the Court of when he will be returned
and released.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Date: January 25, 2026 	s/Katherine M. Menendez
Katherine M. Menendez
United States District Judge
CASE 0:26-cv-00557-KMM-DJF Doc. 6 Filed 01/25/26 Page 4 of 4