Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Cristhian Z.,
Petitioner,
v.
Pamela Bondi, Attorney General; Kristi
Noem, Secretary, U.S. Department of
Homeland Security; Todd M. Lyons, Acting
Director, Immigration and Customs
Enforcement; David Easterwood, Acting
Director, St. Paul Field Office, Immigration
and Customs Enforcement and Removal
Operations, St. Paul Field Office;
Respondents.
File No. 26-CV-299 (JMB/LIB)
ORDER
Claire Glenn, Climate Defense Project, Minneapolis, MN, for Cristhian Z.
Ana H. Voss, United States Attorney’s Office, Minneapolis, MN, for Respondents Pamela
Bondi, Kristi Noem, Todd M. Lyons, and David Easterwood.
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Cristhian Z.’s1 Amended Petition for
Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”) under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 	(Doc. No. 3 [hereinafter,
“Am. Pet.”].) 	Respondents Pamela Bondi, Kristi Noem, Todd M. Lyons, and David
Easterwood, together, “Respondents”) are named in the Petition. For the reasons explained
below, the Court grants the Petition in part.
1 This District has adopted a policy of using only the first name and last initial of any
nongovernmental parties in immigration cases.
CASE 0:26-cv-00299-JMB-LIB Doc. 6 Filed 01/20/26 Page 1 of 7

2
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. 	Cristhian Z. is a citizen of Ecuador who entered the United States without
inspection in 2019. (Am. Pet. ¶¶ 12, 15.)
2. 	Cristhian Z. does not have a final order of removal entered against him, and
he has no criminal record. (Id. ¶¶ 14, 17.)
3. 	Respondents took Cristhian Z. into physical custody on or about January 14,
2026, while he was waiting for the train at the Lake Street light rail station in Minneapolis.
(Id. ¶ 18.)
4. 	On January 14, 2026, Cristhian Z. filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. No. 1.) He then filed an Amended Petition the next
day. (Am. Pet.) which seeks a bond hearing pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) or immediate
release. (Id. at 15–16.)
5. 	On January 15, 2026, the Court ordered Respondents to file a response to the
Petition by January 20, 2026, at 11:00 a.m., and enjoining Respondents from transferring
Cristhian Z. out of the District of Minnesota. 	(Doc. No. 4.) 	Respondents timely filed a
response.2
6. 	In their Response, Respondents notified the Court that Cristhian Z. was
transferred to El Paso Camp East Montana in El Paso, Texas, late in the evening on January
2 The Response is signed by an attorney who has not noticed their appearance. 	Only
attorneys who have been admitted to practice before this Court may file documents. 	D.
Minn. L.R. 83.5(e). In light of the Court’s decision to grant the Petition, however, the Court
declines to consider whether to strike the response.
CASE 0:26-cv-00299-JMB-LIB Doc. 6 Filed 01/20/26 Page 2 of 7

3
14, 2026, before the Court’s order prohibiting transfer was filed.3 (Doc. No. 5 at 2.)
DISCUSSION
Respondents argue that Cristhian Z.’s detention is mandatory pursuant to 8 U.S.C.
§ 1225(b). 	For the reasons discussed below, the Court concludes that because section
1225(b) is not applicable to him, Cristhian Z. is entitled to a bond hearing pursuant to
section 1226(a)(1). The Court therefore grants Cristhian Z.’s Petition.4
A. 	Constitutional Guarantee of Habeas Review
As a threshold matter, the Court notes that a writ of habeas corpus may be granted
to any person who demonstrates he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws of
the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3); Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 525 (2004)
(concluding that the Constitution guarantees that the writ of habeas corpus is “available to
every individual detained within the United States” (citing U.S. Const., Art. I, § 9, cl. 2));
Aditya W.H. v. Trump, 782 F. Supp. 3d 691, 702 (D. Minn. 2025). For most of the nation’s
history, habeas review “has remained a critical check on the Executive, ensuring that it
3 The Court concludes that the physical transfer of Cristhian Z. to El Paso after the initiation
of this proceeding did not deprive this Court of jurisdiction over his habeas petition, Weeks
v. Wyrick, 638 F.2d 690, 692 (8th Cir. 1981). 	If Cristhian Z. seeks additional relief
concerning release or return transportation, Cristhian Z. is invited to file any appropriate
requests.
4 Because Cristhian Z.’s arguments primarily concern his entitlement to a bond hearing, the
Court determines that here, the bond hearing is the primary relief sought under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241 and declines to address the remaining relief requested. 	To the extent that the
Petition also includes a request for immediate release, the Court declines to address this
requested relief because the Petition does not develop an argument that the January 14
arrest was unlawful, separate and apart from the challenged legal basis for his continued
detention without a bond hearing.
CASE 0:26-cv-00299-JMB-LIB Doc. 6 Filed 01/20/26 Page 3 of 7

4
does not detain individuals except in accordance with law.” 	Hamdi, 542 U.S. at 525
(quotation omitted). The right to challenge the legality of a person’s confinement through
a petition for a writ of habeas corpus “extends to . . . immigration-related detention.” Deng
Chol A. v. Barr, 455 F. Supp. 3d 896, 900–01 (D. Minn. 2020) (citation omitted). 	The
petitioner bears the burden of proving that his detention is illegal by a preponderance of
evidence. 	Jose J.O.E. v. Bondi, No. 25-CV-3051 (ECT/DJF), 2025 WL 2466670, at *5
(D. Minn. Aug. 27, 2025) (citing Aditya W.H., 782 F. Supp. 3d at 703).
B. 	Interpretation of Section 1225
Courts have overwhelmingly rejected Respondents’ interpretation that section
1225(b)(2) requires the mandatory detention of all noncitizens living in the country who
are “inadmissible” because they entered the United States without inspection. 	See, e.g.,
Barco Mercado v. Francis, No. 25-CV-6582 (LAK), 2025 WL 3295903, at *4 & n.22
(S.D.N.Y. Nov. 26, 2025) (noting that this interpretation had been rejected in 350 cases
“decided by over 160 different judges sitting in about fifty different courts spread across
the United States” and collecting cases in an Appendix A); Jose Andres R.E. v. Bondi, No.
25-CV-3946 (NEB/DLM), 2025 WL 3146312, at *1 n.2 (D. Minn. Nov. 4, 2025)
(collecting cases); Belsai D.S. v. Bondi, No. 25-CV-3682 (KMM/EMB), 2025 WL
2802947, at *5–6 (D. Minn. Oct. 1, 2025) (collecting cases). 	This Court also finds
Respondents’ interpretation unpersuasive.
When interpreting a statute, “every clause and word of a statute should have
meaning.” 	United States ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Res., Inc., 599 U.S. 419, 432
(2023) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Montclair v. Ramsdell, 107 U.S. 147,
CASE 0:26-cv-00299-JMB-LIB Doc. 6 Filed 01/20/26 Page 4 of 7

5
152 (1883)). 	Noncitizens who have been residing in the United States but who entered
without inspection have not, historically, been considered to still be “arriving” under
section 1225(b). 	This is because the statute itself states that, in order to apply, several
conditions must be met; specifically, an immigration officer must determine that the
noncitizen “is an applicant for admission . . . seeking admission . . . [and] not clearly and
beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted.” 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A). Determining the plain
meaning of the statute requires consideration of the tense of the verb “is” and the present
participle “seeking.” 	Here, section 1225(b)(2) applies to persons who presently are
applicants for admission and who presently are seeking admission at the time of their
detention. 	To be seeking admission means to be seeking entry, which “by its own force
implies a coming from outside.” United States ex rel. Claussen v. Day, 279 U.S. 398, 401
(1929). In this case, Cristhian Z. has been residing in the United States and is, therefore,
not currently “seeking admission” into the United States.
In addition, Respondents’ interpretation of 1225(b)(2) renders superfluous other
immigration laws. Specifically, interpreting section 1225(b)(2) as applying to noncitizens
who have already entered the country and are not currently seeking admission into the
country, as Respondents urge, would render meaningless a recent amendment to section
1226 by the Laken Riley Act (LRA). The LRA added new categories of noncitizens subject
to mandatory detention under section 1226(c), and one such category was for noncitizens
lacking valid documentation and who have been charged with or convicted of certain
crimes. See 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c)(1)(E)(i)–(ii). But if Respondents’ interpretation of section
1225 were correct, then there would have been no need for the LRA to create these
CASE 0:26-cv-00299-JMB-LIB Doc. 6 Filed 01/20/26 Page 5 of 7

6
additional categories because all noncitizens who are present in the United States and have
not 	been 	admitted 	would 	have 	already 	been 	ineligible 	for 	bond 	under 	section
1225(b)(2)(A).
The Court also agrees with those courts that have found that Respondents’
interpretation of section 1225(b) is “at odds with both the relevant legislative history and
longstanding agency practice.” Belsai D.S., 2025 WL 2802947, at *7; see, e.g., Maldonado
v. Olson, 795 F. Supp. 3d 1134, 1150 (D. Minn. 2025) (discussing the longstanding practice
of treating noncitizens who resided in the United States, but who had entered without
inspection, as being subject to section 1226(a)).
For these reasons, the Court finds that Cristhian Z.’s detention is governed by
section 1226(a), and he is not subject to section 1225(b)’s mandatory detention. Pursuant
to section 1226(a), Cristhian Z. is entitled to a bond hearing. 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a)(1)(2); see
also Belsai D.S., 2025 WL 2802947, at *5–6; Jose Andres R.E., 2025 WL 3146312, at *1
n.2. 	Accordingly, the Court grants the Petition to the extent Cristhian Z. seeks a bond
hearing.
ORDER
Based on the foregoing, and on all of the files, records, and proceedings herein,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the Amended Petition (Doc. No. 3) is GRANTED in
part and DENIED in part, as follows:
1. 	Respondents must immediately provide Petitioner with a bond hearing under
8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), and in any event, on or before 5:00 p.m. CT on January
22, 2026.
CASE 0:26-cv-00299-JMB-LIB Doc. 6 Filed 01/20/26 Page 6 of 7

7
2. 	If Respondents do not provide Petitioner with a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1226(a) as required herein, Petitioner must be immediately released from
detention.
3. 	On or before 11:00 a.m. CT on January 23, 2026, counsel for Respondents
shall file a letter affirming that Petitioner received a bond hearing as required
by this Order and advising the Court as to the results of the bond hearing, or
if no bond hearing was held, affirming that Petitioner was released from
custody.
4. 	To the extent Petitioner seeks additional relief, the Petition is DENIED.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: January 20, 2026 	/s/ Jeffrey M. Bryan
Judge Jeffrey M. Bryan
United States District Court
CASE 0:26-cv-00299-JMB-LIB Doc. 6 Filed 01/20/26 Page 7 of 7