Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Misael T.,
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; and David Easterwood, Acting
Director, St. Paul Field Office Immigration
and Customs Enforcement,
Respondents.
File No. 26-cv-263 (ECT/EMB)
OPINION AND ORDER
Kira Aakre Kelley, Climate Defense Project, Minneapolis, MN, for Petitioner Misael T.
Ana H. Voss,1 United States Attorney’s Office, Minneapolis, MN, for Respondents Pamela
Bondi, Kristi Noem, Todd M. Lyons, and David Easterwood.
Petitioner Misael T. is an Ecuadorian citizen who has resided in the United States
since August 22, 2023. Pet. [ECF No. 1] ¶ 12. Misael “entered the United States with his
wife and two children, and asserted a claim of asylum, which proceedings are currently
pending.” Id. ¶ 13. Misael also “obtained a work permit.” Id. ¶ 14. The dates of Misael’s
asylum application and work authorization have not been provided, either by him or
Respondents. See Pet. ¶ 12; ECF No. 8 at 1–2. Misael “has no criminal history,” and he
1 	Matthew Isihara filed a response on behalf of the United States Attorney’s Office.
See ECF No. 8. Mr. Isihara has not filed a notice of appearance in this action. See Dkt.
CASE 0:26-cv-00263-ECT-EMB Doc. 10 Filed 01/20/26 Page 1 of 5

2
“has been diligent about staying on top of his paperwork and court appearances for his
pending asylum claim.” Id. ¶¶ 16–17. Misael was detained on January 13, 2026, as part
of “Operation Metro Surge.” Id. ¶¶ 18, 20. At the time of his Petition’s filing, Misael was
detained at “the Whipple in Fort Snelling, Minnesota.” Id. ¶ 23.2
Misael challenges his detention under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Pet. ¶ 2. 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. ¶¶ 33–38; see Jose J.O.E. v. Bondi, 797 F. Supp. 3d 957, 961–62 (D. Minn.
2025) (explaining legal framework). According to Misael, that misclassification and denial
of a bond hearing violate his right to due process under the Fifth Amendment, the
Administrative Procedure Act, and 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). Pet. ¶¶ 39–56. He seeks a writ of
habeas corpus requiring Respondents to release him immediately or provide a bond hearing
under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and an order enjoining his transfer out of the District of Minnesota
during the pendency of this case. Pet. at 16.
According to Respondents, 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) governs Misael’s detention,
making his continued detention mandatory. This raises an issue of statutory interpretation3
2 	Neither party provided the Court with Misael’s Notice to Appear or the other
paperwork we’ve usually received in these cases. In this case, it doesn’t matter. In their
response to Misael’s Petition, Respondents did not contest any of the facts alleged in the
Petition. See ECF No. 8 at 1–2.
3 	To the extent Respondents challenge this Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction to
consider Misael’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-00263-ECT-EMB Doc. 10 Filed 01/20/26 Page 2 of 5

3
that courts in this District have repeatedly considered and rejected, and it will be rejected
here as well.
Misael 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 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).
Misael has lived in the United States for more than two years. 	His detention falls under
§ 1226 and not § 1225(b)(2).
Respondents argue that this case is distinct from others this Court has decided
because Misael’s pursuit of asylum mandates his detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2).
See ECF No. 8 at 7–8. On this thin record, and consistent with my decision in Ahmed M.
v. Bondi, I conclude that Misael’s asylum application alone does not change the conclusion
CASE 0:26-cv-00263-ECT-EMB Doc. 10 Filed 01/20/26 Page 3 of 5

4
that Misael’s detention falls under § 1226. No. 25-cv-4711 (ECT/SGE), 2026 WL 25627,
at *1–2 (D. Minn. Jan. 5, 2026); see Jhony A. v. Bondi, No. 26-cv-146 (JMB/LIB), 2026
WL 114334, at *3 (D. Minn. Jan. 15, 2026) (“The fact that Jhony A. has applied for asylum
does not change the conclusion.”); Mayamu K. v. Bondi, No. 25-3035 (JWB/LIB), 2025
WL 3641819, at *4 (D. Minn. Oct. 20, 2025) (“That Petitioner is in asylum proceedings
does not alter this analysis.”); Lopez Benitez v. Francis, 795 F. Supp. 3d 475, 488 n.7
(S.D.N.Y. 2025) (“To the extent that Respondents might point to [petitioner’s] asylum
application to argue that he continues to ‘seek’ something, what he seeks is not ‘admission’
or ‘lawful entry’ to the United States, but to obtain a lawful means to remain here.”).
Misael is subject to discretionary detention and entitled to a bond hearing.4
ORDER
Therefore, based on the foregoing, and on all the files, records, and proceedings
herein, IT IS ORDERED THAT Petitioner Misael T.’s 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),
and is instead subject to detention, if at all, pursuant to the discretionary provisions of 8
U.S.C. § 1226.
4 	The resolution of this statutory-interpretation question in Misael’s favor makes it
unnecessary to address the Petition’s remaining grounds.
CASE 0:26-cv-00263-ECT-EMB Doc. 10 Filed 01/20/26 Page 4 of 5

5
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 20, 2026 	s/ Eric C. Tostrud
Eric C. Tostrud
United States District Court
CASE 0:26-cv-00263-ECT-EMB Doc. 10 Filed 01/20/26 Page 5 of 5