Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Victor F.M.,
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 & 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.
File No. 25-cv-4778 (ECT/SGE)
OPINION AND ORDER
David L. Wilson and Olivia Anderson-Petroske, Wilson Law Group, Minneapolis, MN,
for Petitioner Victor F.M.
David John Walker, Freeborn County Attorney’s Office, Albert Lea, MN, for Respondent
Ryan Shea.
Ana H. Voss and Liles Harvey Repp, United States Attorney’s Office, Minneapolis, MN,
for Respondents Pamela Bondi, Kristi Noem, Department of Homeland Security, Todd M.
Lyons, Immigration & Customs Enforcement, Daren K. Margolin, Executive Office for
Immigration Review, and David Easterwood.
CASE 0:25-cv-04778-ECT-SGE Doc. 9 Filed 01/05/26 Page 1 of 7

2
Petitioner Victor F.M. is a Mexican citizen who has lived in the United States
without authorization since 2012 or 2013,1 when he entered the country without inspection.
See Pet. [ECF No. 1] ¶¶ 13, 28–29; ECF No. 6 ¶ 4. On May 9, 2018, Victor filed a U visa
application that remains pending.2 Pet. ¶ 32; ECF No. 6 ¶¶ 4–5. On December 23, 2025,
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) arrested Victor in Apple Valley,
Minnesota. ECF No. 6-2 at 2. At the time of his arrest, Victor “had a valid employment
authorization document.” Id. ¶ 32; see ECF No. 6 ¶¶ 4–5 (stating that “[o]n February 27,
2023, USCIS approved [Victor’s] I-765 application” for Employment Authorization). The
day of his arrest, ICE served Victor with a notice to appear3 in immigration court. 	ECF
No. 6 ¶ 6; ECF No. 6-1 (Notice to Appear). The Notice to Appear identified Victor as “an
1 	Victor’s Verified Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus alleges that he entered the
United States “on or about 2012.” See Pet. ¶ 29. According to Respondents, on a May 9,
2018 U visa application, Victor stated that he entered the United States on March 16, 2013.
See ECF No. 6 ¶ 4.
2 	“The U nonimmigrant status (U visa) is set aside for victims of certain crimes who
have suffered mental or physical abuse and are helpful to law enforcement or government
officials in the investigation or prosecution of criminal activity.” 	Victims of Criminal
Activity: U Nonimmigrant Status, U.S. Citizenship & Immigr. Servs. https://www.uscis
.gov/humanitarian/victims-of-criminal-activity-u-nonimmigrant-status (last visited Jan. 5,
2026). Victor’s I-918 petition for U nonimmigrant status and I-192 application for advance
permission to enter as a nonimmigrant “were determined to be bona fide,” and “are
currently pending with deferred action, and once a visa is available USCIS would
determine eligibility for nonimmigrant status and whether [Victor] is admissible to the
United States.” See ECF No. 6 ¶¶ 4–5.
3 	A declaration filed by Respondents indicates that ICE officers issued an arrest
warrant as well, see ECF No. 6 ¶ 6, but no warrant was provided to the Court, see ECF
Nos. 6, 6-1, 6-2. And the Government’s response brief mentions nothing about an arrest
warrant. See ECF No. 5 at 2 (describing that when Victor was taken into custody, he was
“served . . . with a Notice to Appear”).
CASE 0:25-cv-04778-ECT-SGE Doc. 9 Filed 01/05/26 Page 2 of 7

3
alien present in the United States who has not been admitted or paroled.” 	ECF No. 6-1
at 1. The box on the form for “arriving alien” was not checked. 	See id. 	Victor’s Form
I-213 Record of Deportable/Inadmissible Alien indicates that he is an “alien present
without admission or parole” and an “immigrant without an immigrant visa” under
§ 212(a)(6)(A)(i) and (a)(7)(A)(i)(I). ECF No. 6-2 at 2; see 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i),
(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) (codifications). Victor has since been detained at the Freeborn County Jail
in Albert Lea, Minnesota. Pet. ¶¶ 14, 37. Victor claims he is within the class certified in
Maldonado Bautista v. Santacruz, No. 5:25-CV-01873-SSS-BFM (C.D. Cal. filed July 23,
2025), and he has filed a bond redetermination request with the Immigration Court due to
his asserted class membership. 	See ECF No. 7 at 2 n.1. 	A bond hearing on that request
has been set for January 8, 2026. Id.
Here, Victor challenges his detention under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Pet. ¶ 8. He claims
he has been wrongly classified as a § 1225(b)(2) detainee (whose detention is mandatory)
rather than a § 1226 detainee (whose detention is discretionary and who is entitled to a
bond hearing). 	Id. ¶¶ 2, 24; see Jose J.O.E. v. Bondi, 797 F. Supp. 3d 957, 961–62
(D. Minn. 2025) (explaining legal framework). According to Victor, that misclassification
and denial of a bond hearing violate his right to due process under the Fifth Amendment,
8 U.S.C. §§ 1225(b)(2) and 1226(a), and § 1226’s implementing regulations. Pet. ¶¶ 64–
93. He seeks a declaration that his detention is unlawful under the Due Process Clause and
8 U.S.C. § 1226; issuance of a writ of habeas corpus ordering Respondents to set a bond
hearing for him and release him immediately; an injunction forbidding Respondents from
CASE 0:25-cv-04778-ECT-SGE Doc. 9 Filed 01/05/26 Page 3 of 7

4
moving him out of the District of Minnesota during the pendency of this case; and an award
of attorneys’ fees and costs. Pet. at 24.
Respondents argue that the petition fails on the merits as a matter of statutory
interpretation.4 ECF No. 5 at 4–10. Courts in this District have repeatedly considered and
rejected Respondents’ argument, and it will be rejected here as well.
Victor has shown he 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,
--- 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
4 	Respondents do not challenge this Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction to consider
Victor’s petition. 	See ECF No. 5. 	Nonetheless, 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 0:25-cv-04778-ECT-SGE Doc. 9 Filed 01/05/26 Page 4 of 7

5
(PJS/DJF), 2025 WL 3281787, at *2–3 (D. Minn. Nov. 25, 2025). As of January 5, 2026,
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., --- F.4th ---, No. 25-3050,
2025 WL 3552514, at *8–10 (7th Cir. Dec. 11, 2025). Victor has lived in the United States
for about thirteen years. His detention falls under § 1226 and not § 1225(b)(2). ECF No.
6-1 at 1 (showing box checked for “alien present in the United States who has not been
admitted or paroled” and not the box for “arriving alien”).
Respondents argue that Victor’s pursuit of a U visa distinguishes this Court’s
decision in Fernando F.P.D., 2025 WL 3675151, but that does not change things. 	Like
numerous courts that have faced similar factual scenarios, I conclude that a noncitizen who
entered the country without authorization and years later pursued a U visa is not “seeking
admission” 	under 	§ 1225(b)(2) 	and 	falls 	within 	§ 1226’s 	discretionary 	detention
procedures. 	See Mendoza Gutierrez v. Baltasar, No. 25-CV-2720-RMR, 2025 WL
2962908, at *6 (D. Colo. Oct. 17, 2025), appeal filed, No. 25-1460 (10th Cir. Dec. 16,
2025); Fuentes v. Olson, No. 25-cv-4456 (LMP/ECW), 2025 WL 3524455, at *1–2, *4
(D. Minn. Dec. 9, 2025) (granting § 1226(a) bond hearing to petitioner who entered more
than twenty years before and was pursuing a U visa when detained, and finding that “a
noncitizen who is present in the United States for decades is not ‘seeking admission’ under
8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)”); N.A. v. LaRose, No. 3:25-cv-03028-RBM-DEB, 2025 WL
3512412, at *5 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 8, 2025) (finding petitioner who had resided in the United
States for seventeen years at the time of his arrest and was pursuing a U visa was not
“seeking admission” and fell within § 1226’s discretionary detention procedures); Patel v.
CASE 0:25-cv-04778-ECT-SGE Doc. 9 Filed 01/05/26 Page 5 of 7

6
Hardin, No. 2:25-cv-870-JES-NPM, 2025 WL 3442706, at *1, *5–6 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 1,
2025) (granting § 1226(a) bond hearing to petitioner who had been in the country since
2011 and pursuing U visa); Ramirez v. Noem, No. 2:25-cv-02136-RFB-MDC, 2025 WL
3270137, at *1, *4, *13 (D. Nev. Nov. 24, 2025) (finding petitioner who had resided in the
United States for over a decade and had been “granted deferred action from removal after
[USCIS] found his U-Visa application was bona fide” was entitled to § 1226(a) bond
hearing); Calel v. LaRose, No. 3:25-cv-02883-GPC-JLB, 2025 WL 3171898, at *1, 4–6
(S.D. Cal. Nov. 13, 2025) (finding petitioner who had resided in the United States for 18
years and was “currently pursuing a U-visa with USCIS” was not “seeking admission”
under § 1225(b)(2)).
For these reasons, Victor is subject to discretionary detention and entitled to a bond
hearing.5
5 	Though Victor alternatively requests immediate release, see Pet. at 24, that will not
be granted. Victor’s regulatory arguments will not be addressed. 	Because Victor succeeds
on his statutory claim, the Court need not address whether Victor is eligible for relief based
on the decision in Maldonado Bautista v. Santacruz, No. 5:25-CV-01873-SSS-BFM (C.D.
Cal. filed July 23, 2025).
CASE 0:25-cv-04778-ECT-SGE Doc. 9 Filed 01/05/26 Page 6 of 7

7
ORDER
Therefore, based on the foregoing, and on all the files, records, and proceedings
herein, IT IS ORDERED THAT Petitioner Victor F.M.’s Verified Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus [ECF No. 1] is GRANTED as follows:
1. 	The Court DECLARES that Petitioner is not subject to mandatory detention
under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2), and is instead subject to detention, if at all, pursuant to the
discretionary provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1226.
2. 	Respondents are ENJOINED from denying Petitioner a bond hearing on the
basis that 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) applies to Petitioner, and Respondents shall provide
Petitioner with a bond hearing in accordance with 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a)(2)(A).
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: January 5, 2026 	s/ Eric C. Tostrud
Eric C. Tostrud
United States District Court
CASE 0:25-cv-04778-ECT-SGE Doc. 9 Filed 01/05/26 Page 7 of 7