Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Yociris P.,
Petitioner,
v.
Pamela Bondi, Attorney General; Kristi
Noem, Secretary, U.S. Department of
Homeland Security; Todd M. Lyons,
Acting Director of Immigration and
Customs Enforcement; David
Easterwood, Acting Director, St. Paul
Field Office Immigration and Customs
Enforcement; and Eric Tollefson, Sheriff of
Kandiyohi County,
Respondents.
File No. 26-cv-1080 (ECT/EMB)
OPINION AND ORDER
________________________________________________________________________
M. Boulette, Minneapolis, MN, for Petitioner Yociris P.
Friedrich A.P. Siekert, Trevor Brown, and David W. Fuller, United States Attorney’s
Office, Minneapolis, MN, for Respondents Pamela Bondi, Kristi Noem, Todd M. Lyons,
and David Easterwood.
Petitioner Yociris P. is a citizen of El Salvador1 who has lived in the United States
since February 2023. Pet. [ECF No. 1] ¶¶ 1, 14. On January 19, 2026,2 Immigration and
1 	One paragraph of the Petition states that “Petitioner is a citizen of Venezuela.” Pet.
¶ 8. 	This appears to be a typographical error, but no one asserts that the legal analysis
would change if Yociris was a citizen of Venezuela. See ECF No. 6.
2 	Respondents answer states that “[o]n December 20, 2026, Immigration officials
detained her.” See ECF No. 6 at 1 (citing Pet. ¶¶ 7, 13, 14, 16). This too appears to be a
typographical error, because three of the cited paragraphs do not address the date on which
Yociris was detained, and the Petition refers to Yociris with male-gendered pronouns.
CASE 0:26-cv-01080-ECT-EMB Doc. 8 Filed 02/08/26 Page 1 of 6

2
Customs Enforcement (“ICE”)—or its agents—arrested Yociris as part of “Operation
Metro Surge.” 	Id. ¶¶ 16, 18. 	The Petition alleges, “[u]pon information and belief,” that
the agents “did not have a warrant to arrest [Yociris].” 	Id. ¶ 16. 	Yociris is currently
detained in ICE custody at the Kandiyohi County jail. 	Id. ¶¶ 13, 17. Respondents3 do not
dispute these facts. See ECF No. 6 at 1 & n.2.
Yociris challenges his detention under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 	Pet. ¶ 3. 	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(a) detainee (whose detention is discretionary
and who is entitled to a bond hearing). 	Pet. ¶¶ 28–31; see Jose J.O.E. v. Bondi, 797 F.
Supp. 3d 957, 961–62 (D. Minn. 2025) (explaining legal framework). 	According to
Yociris, that misclassification and denial of a bond hearing violate his right to due process
under the Fifth Amendment, the Immigration and Nationality Act, and the Administrative
Procedure Act. 	See Pet. ¶¶ 32–48. 	Yociris seeks issuance of a writ of habeas corpus
requiring his release unless Respondents provide a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a);
release conditions to ensure his release in Minnesota without conditions, his safety, and the
return of his personal effects; issuance of an order enjoining his transfer outside this District
during the pendency of his Petition; that the Court retain jurisdiction over this matter to
decide any future motion for attorneys’ fees and costs; and “any other and further relief
that this Court may deem just and proper.” 	Pet. at 15–16.
3 	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-01080-ECT-EMB Doc. 8 Filed 02/08/26 Page 2 of 6

3
Recognizing that “this case presents similar legal and factual issues to prior habeas
petitions,” Respondents argue that Yociris is subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1225 See ECF No. 6 at 2–11. This raises an issue of statutory interpretation4 that courts
in this District have repeatedly considered and rejected, and it will be rejected here as well.
Yociris has shown he has been misclassified under § 1225(b)(2) rather than
§ 1226(a). 	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,
4 	To the extent Respondents challenge this Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction to
consider Yociris’s Petition, see ECF No. 6 at 3 (arguing “this Court does not now and never
had subject matter jurisdiction over this habeas 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-01080-ECT-EMB Doc. 8 Filed 02/08/26 Page 3 of 6

4
two federal courts of appeals have ruled on the question, one reaching and one rejecting
this conclusion. See Castañon-Nava v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 161 F.4th 1048, 1062
(7th Cir. 2025) (concluding that respondent was not likely to prevail on the merits that
petitioner was subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)); Buenrostro-Mendez v.
Bondi, --- F.4th ---, Nos. 25-20496, 25-40701, 2026 WL 323330, at *1 (5th Cir. Feb. 6,
2026) (finding petitioner was subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)). Yociris
has lived in the United States for approximately three years, Pet. ¶ 14, and I find his
detention falls under § 1226(a) and not § 1225(b)(2).5
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
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
5 	Respondents do not argue that Yociris is subject to mandatory detention pursuant to
8 U.S.C. § 1226(c), or that any other statutory scheme other than that raised in the Petition
would apply to Yociris’s detention. See ECF No. 6.
CASE 0:26-cv-01080-ECT-EMB Doc. 8 Filed 02/08/26 Page 4 of 6

5
“[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, the
Petition alleges that Yociris was arrested without a warrant. Pet. ¶ 16. Respondents were
ordered to include in their answer “[w]hether the absence of a warrant preceding [Yociris’s]
arrest necessitates [Yociris’s] immediate release.” ECF No. 4 at 2. Respondents have not
produced a warrant, nor have they advanced any specific argument that justifies Yociris’s
detention under § 1226(a) without a warrant. 	See ECF No. 6 at 11–12. 	Specifically,
Respondents do not indicate why any of 8 U.S.C. § 1357’s exceptions to the warrant
requirement would apply to Yociris. 	See id. 	Nor do Respondents explain how the cases
they cite apply in the face of 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), which requires “a warrant issued by the
Attorney General” as a predicate to discretionary detention under § 1226(a). See id. at 12
(citing I.N.S. v. Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U.S. 1032, 1039 (1984); and then citing Arias v.
Rogers, 676 F.2d 1139, 1142 (7th Cir. 1982)).
“[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);
CASE 0:26-cv-01080-ECT-EMB Doc. 8 Filed 02/08/26 Page 5 of 6

6
Chiliquinga Yumbillo, 2025 WL 2783642, at *5 (reaching same conclusion); see also
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)).6
ORDER
Therefore, based on the foregoing, and on all the files, records, and proceedings
herein, IT IS ORDERED THAT Petitioner Yociris P.’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. 	Respondents shall release Petitioner from custody as follows:
a. 	If Petitioner remains detained in Minnesota, Respondents shall release
Petitioner from custody as soon as practicable, but not later than 48 hours after entry of this
Order.
b. 	If Petitioner has been moved outside of Minnesota, 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: February 8, 2026, at 2:25 p.m. 	s/ Eric C. Tostrud
Eric C. Tostrud
United States District Court
6 	The resolution of this statutory-interpretation question in Yociris’s favor makes it
unnecessary to address the Petition’s remaining grounds.
CASE 0:26-cv-01080-ECT-EMB Doc. 8 Filed 02/08/26 Page 6 of 6