Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Pedro C.,
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 and Customs
Enforcement; Daren K. Margolin, Director
for Executive Office for Immigration
Review; Executive Office for Immigration
Review; and David Easterwood, Acting
Director, St. Paul Field Office, Immigration
and Customs Enforcement,
Respondents.
File No. 26-cv-78 (ECT/JFD)
OPINION AND ORDER
David L. Wilson and Katherine Lourdes Santamaria El Bayoumi, Wilson Law Group,
Minneapolis, MN, for Petitioner Pedro C.
Ana H. Voss, United States Attorney’s Office, Minneapolis, MN, for Respondents Pamela
Bondi, Kristi Noem, Department of Homeland Security, Todd M. Lyons, Immigration and
Customs Enforcement, Daren K. Margolin, Executive Office for Immigration Review, and
David Easterwood.
Petitioner Pedro C. is an Ecuadoran citizen who has lived in the United States
without authorization since January 2020, when he entered the country without inspection.
Pet. ¶¶ 13, 27–28. On February 15, 2020, United States Border Patrol encountered Pedro
near Sasabe, Arizona. ECF No. 5 ¶ 4. Pedro “was issued a Notice and Order of Expedited
CASE 0:26-cv-00078-ECT-JFD Doc. 8 Filed 01/13/26 Page 1 of 5

2
Removal, Form I-860 and was placed in fear proceedings.” Id. On May 4, 2020, United
States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) “made a positive credible fear
determination” and issued a Notice to Appear, Form I-862, charging Pedro as subject to
removal from the United States pursuant to Section 212(a)(6)(A)(i) and 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I)
of 	the 	Immigration 	and 	Nationality 	Act 	(“INA”) 	(codified 	under 	8 	U.S.C.
§ 1182(a)(6)(A)(i) and (a)(7)(A)(i)(I)). 	See ECF No. 5 ¶ 5. 	On June 9, 2020, an
immigration judge granted a bond of $8,000, and on June 11, 2020, Pedro was released
from ICE custody after posting the bond. 	See id. ¶¶ 6–7. 	On November 16, 2022, an
immigration judge in Hartford, Connecticut, dismissed Pedro’s case. 	See id. ¶ 8. 	On
January 	7, 	2026, 	Pedro 	was 	arrested 	in 	Minnesota 	by 	Immigration 	and 	Customs
Enforcement 	(“ICE”) 	and 	Enforcement 	and 	Removal 	Operations 	(“ERO”) 	during
“Operation Metro Surge.” 	See id. ¶ 9. Pedro filed the present petition for writ of habeas
corpus on January 7, 2026, while being held in ICE custody in Minnesota. See Pet. ¶ 35;
ECF No. 5 ¶ 10. 	“On January 8, 2026, [Pedro] was transferred to El Paso Camp East
Montana in El Paso, [Texas] for bed space decompression.” ECF No. 5 ¶ 11. “At the time
of the transfer, ICE/ERO was not aware of any habeas that was filed nor any requests to
not be transferred.” 	Id. 	On January 8, 2026, ICE issued Pedro a Form I-862 Notice to
Appear, 	charging 	his 	removability 	under 	INA 	Section 	212(a)(6)(A)(i) 	and
212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I), as follows:
212(a)(6)(A)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as
amended, in that you are an alien present in the United States
without being admitted or paroled, or who arrived in the United
States at any time or place other than as designated by the
Attorney General.
CASE 0:26-cv-00078-ECT-JFD Doc. 8 Filed 01/13/26 Page 2 of 5

3
212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) of the Immigration and Nationality Act
(Act), as amended, as an immigrant who, at the time of
application for admission, is not in possession of a valid
unexpired immigrant visa, reentry permit, border crossing
card, or other valid entry document required by the Act, and a
valid unexpired passport, or other suitable travel document, or
document of identity and nationality as required under the
regulations issued by the Attorney General under section
211(a) of the Act.
ECF No. 5 ¶ 12; ECF No. 5-1 at 4. Pedro is currently in ICE custody at El Paso Camp East
Montana, “awaiting his court date with th[e] [immigration judge] on January 15, 2026.”
ECF No. 5 ¶ 13; see ECF No. 5-1 at 2. Pedro has “no pending criminal charges” and “no
criminal history that subjects him to mandatory custody under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c).” Pet.
¶¶ 31, 34.
Here, Pedro 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, 4, 36–61, 69–77; see Jose J.O.E. v. Bondi, 797 F. Supp. 3d 957,
961–62 	(D. Minn. 	2025) 	(explaining 	legal 	framework). 	According 	to 	Pedro, 	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. See Pet. ¶¶ 69–77, 83–91. He seeks a declaration that his detention absent a
bond hearing violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment; issuance of a writ
of habeas corpus ordering Respondents to release him from custody or set a bond hearing
for him pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a); an order enjoining his removal or transfer out of
CASE 0:26-cv-00078-ECT-JFD Doc. 8 Filed 01/13/26 Page 3 of 5

4
the District of Minnesota during the pendency of this case; and an award of attorneys’ fees
and costs. Pet. at 23–24.
Respondents argue that the petition fails on the merits as a matter of statutory
interpretation.1 ECF No. 4 at 3–14. Courts in this District have repeatedly considered and
rejected Respondents’ argument, and it will be rejected here as well.
Pedro 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
(PJS/DJF), 2025 WL 3281787, at *2–3 (D. Minn. Nov. 25, 2025). As of January 10, 2026,
1 	Respondents do not challenge this Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction to consider
Pedro’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 0:26-cv-00078-ECT-JFD Doc. 8 Filed 01/13/26 Page 4 of 5

5
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). Pedro has lived in the United States for six years. His detention falls under § 1226
and not § 1225(b)(2). See ECF No. 5-1 at 1 (stating that Pedro is an “alien present in the
United States who has not been admitted or paroled,” not an “arriving alien”).
For these reasons, Pedro is subject to discretionary detention and entitled to a bond
hearing.2
ORDER
Therefore, based on the foregoing, and on all the files, records, and proceedings
herein, IT IS ORDERED THAT Petitioner Pedro C.’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 13, 2026 	s/ Eric C. Tostrud
Eric C. Tostrud
United States District Court
2 	Though Pedro alternatively requests release, see Pet. at 23, that will not be granted.
Pedro’s regulatory arguments will not be addressed.
CASE 0:26-cv-00078-ECT-JFD Doc. 8 Filed 01/13/26 Page 5 of 5