Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Antonio C.,
Petitioner,
v.
Kristi Noem, in her official capacity as
Secretary of the Department of Homeland
Security; Todd Lyons, in his official
capacity as Acting Director of United
States Immigration and Customs
Enforcement; and David Easterwood, in
his official capacity as Acting Director,
St. Paul Field Office, U.S. Immigration
and Customs Enforcement,
Respondents.
Case No. 26-cv-00306 (MJD/ECW)
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Antonio C.’s Petition for a Writ of
Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, filed on January 14, 2026. (Dkt. 1.) According
to the Petition, Petitioner is a citizen of Mexico who has resided in the United States for
more than 20 years. (Id. ¶ 3.) He has been detained in Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (“ICE”) custody since January 14, 2026. (Id. ¶ 1.) Petitioner seeks a
declaratory judgment that he is subject only to discretionary detention under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1226(a), not mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2), and that an immigration
judge must therefore hold a custody redetermination hearing under 8 C.F.R. § 1236 to
allow Petitioner the opportunity to seek a bond for his release from custody. (Id. ¶ 1.)
CASE 0:26-cv-00306-MJD-ECW Doc. 8 Filed 01/22/26 Page 1 of 7

2
On January 15, 2026, U.S. District Judge Michael J. Davis issued an Order
requiring Respondents to file their answer no later than January 19, 2026, certifying the
true cause and proper duration of Petitioner’s confinement and showing cause why the
writ should not be granted in this case. (Dkt. 4 at 1 ¶ 1.) Judge Davis also “enjoined
Respondents from removing Petitioner from the District of Minnesota” until a final
decision has been made on the Petition and ordered Respondents “to immediately return
Petitioner to Minnesota” if he has already been removed from Minnesota. (Id. at 2-3 ¶¶
2-3.) On January 19, 2026, Respondents filed a Response. (Dkt. 6.) Respondents filed
no supporting declaration or other evidence in support of their assertion or positions.
Petitioner filed his reply on January 21, 2026 (Dkt. 7), and the case is now ripe for
decision.
I. 	FACTS
Petitioner alleges, and Respondents do not dispute, that he is a citizen of Mexico
who has resided in the United States since November 2004. (Dkt. 1 ¶¶ 43-45.) Petitioner
has a nine-year-old child who is a United States Citizen. (Id. ¶ 3.) Petitioner alleges, and
Respondents do not dispute, that on November 10, 2024, Petitioner filed an I-360 VAWA
Petition with the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS), and on
November 10, 2025, USCIS issued a Prima Facie Determination that Petitioner was
eligible. (Id. ¶ 3.)
Petitioner was taken into ICE custody on January 14, 2026 and was detained at
Fort Snelling, Minnesota. (Id. ¶ 1.) Respondents have provided no additional facts about
the circumstances or reason for Petitioner’s detention, other than to state that Petitioner
CASE 0:26-cv-00306-MJD-ECW Doc. 8 Filed 01/22/26 Page 2 of 7

3
“is currently detained by ICE pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A),” “falls under the
statutory definition of an ‘applicant for admission,’ see 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1), and an
examining immigration officer has determined that he is ‘not clearly and without a doubt
entitled to be admitted.’” (Dkt. 6 at 1.)1
Respondents represent in their brief that prior to Judge Davis’s January 15, 2026
order prohibiting Petitioner’s removal from the District of Minnesota, Respondents had
already transferred Petitioner to an ICE facility in Texas “for bed-space reasons.” (Dkt. 6
at 2.) Respondents report that “ICE is working to return him to Minnesota in compliance
with the Order, and he is expected back [on January 20, 2026.]”2 (Id.)
II. 	LEGAL STANDARD
A federal court may provide habeas relief to a person who is detained in violation
of the Constitution or laws of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). “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.” Diego L., v. Bondi, et al., No. 26-CV-
382 (JMB/DJF), 2026 WL 145206, at *2 (D. Minn. Jan. 20, 2026) (citation modified).
Petitioner has the burden of proving his entitlement to relief by a preponderance of the
evidence. Jose J.O.E. v. Bondi, 797 F. Supp. 3d 957, 965 (D. Minn. 2025). As U.S.
Magistrate Judge John F. Docherty recently explained in a similar case:
1 	Page number citations in this Report and Recommendation are to the page number
assigned by CM/ECF.
2 	Respondents have not argued that this transfer deprived the Court of jurisdiction
over the Petition.
CASE 0:26-cv-00306-MJD-ECW Doc. 8 Filed 01/22/26 Page 3 of 7

4
Two provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act are relevant to this
case. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2), which applies to “an alien seeking
admission” to the United States, detention while immigration proceedings
are conducted is mandatory, while under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), which applies
to an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, detention is
discretionary and may only be imposed after a hearing.
Mahamed C.A. v. Noem, No. 25-CV-4551 (MJD/JFD), 2025 WL 3771299, at *1-2 (D.
Minn. Dec. 16, 2025), R. & R. adopted sub nom., 2025 WL 3754012 (D. Minn. Dec. 29,
2025).
III. 	ANALYSIS
As stated above, Petitioner seeks immediate release, or in the alternative, a
declaratory judgment that he is subject to discretionary detention under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1226(a), not mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2), and thus entitled to a
custody redetermination hearing before an immigration judge under 8 C.F.R. § 1236 so
Petitioner can seek a bond for his release from custody. (Id. ¶ 1.)
The Response makes the following argument for denial of the Petition:
This petition raises legal and factual issues similar to those in prior habeas
petitions this Court has decided. Those issues are currently before the Eighth
Circuit on expedited review in Avila v. Bondi, No. 25-3248 (8th Cir. docketed
Nov. 10, 2025). Rather than belabor these proceedings by rearguing points
the Court has considered and rejected, Federal Respondents assert all
arguments raised by the government in Avila and respectfully request that the
Court preserve those arguments for any appeal in this case.
(Dkt. 6 at 1.) Respondents also note that “though a minority view, dozens of courts
across the country have adopted the government’s reading of § 1225.” (Dkt. 6 at 2 (citing
Bidye M. v. Kandiyohi Cnty. Jail, No. 25-04791 (PAM-EMB), ECF No. 10 (D. Minn.
CASE 0:26-cv-00306-MJD-ECW Doc. 8 Filed 01/22/26 Page 4 of 7

5
Jan. 16, 2026); Abdirahmaan G. v. Noem, No. 26-34 (PAM/SGE), ECF No. 7 (D. Minn.
Jan. 14, 2026)).
In his Reply, Petitioner further argues that “Respondents have failed to produce a
warrant or other exhibit that sets forth the proper basis for Petitioner’s detention” or
otherwise “show that they have satisfied the statutory requirements for detention or
shown any evidence that would indicate to this Court that detention of Petitioner is
mandatory.” (Dkt. 7 at 1.)
The crux of the issue here is whether Petitioner, who has lived in the United States
for over 20 years, should be treated as an “applicant[] for admission” under § 1225,
subjecting him to mandatory detention, or as “an alien” who was “arrested and detained
pending a decision on whether the alien is to be removed from the United States” under
§ 1226, and therefore entitled to a bond hearing before an immigration judge.
The Court has carefully reviewed, but is not persuaded by, the two cases that
Respondents cite in support of their position. The Court reads 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) to
apply only to persons who are “presently seeking admission at the time of their
detention.” See Beltran v. Bondi, No. 25-04604 (MJD/DTS), 2025 WL 3719856, at *3
(D. Minn. Dec. 23, 2025) (reasoning that to be seeking admission means to be “coming
from outside” and concluding that an individual who had resided in the country for 18
years was not currently seeking admission).
The Court agrees with the numerous thoughtful and persuasive decisions
addressing this issue in this District and nationwide which overwhelmingly support
granting the Petition. See Mahamed C.A., 2025 WL 3771299, at *2-3 (“The United
CASE 0:26-cv-00306-MJD-ECW Doc. 8 Filed 01/22/26 Page 5 of 7

6
States concedes that Petitioner’s claim is similar to numerous other immigration cases in
this District in which citizens detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
seek bond hearings, in every one of which a district judge of this Court has ruled against
the government's new interpretation. . . . Going beyond Minnesota to consider this
question on a national level, over 300 cases (and counting) have been decided adversely
to the government.”). As another judge in this District recently explained: “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.” Martin R. v. Noem, No. 26-
CV-168 (JMB/LIB), 2026 WL 115024, at *2 (D. Minn. Jan. 15, 2026). The Court sees
no reason to depart from this well-reasoned consensus, and adopts the statutory analysis
set forth in Martin R. and the myriad other cases rejecting Respondents’ position.
Consequently, the Court recommends that the Petition be granted insofar as
Respondents be ordered to hold a bond hearing for Petitioner before an immigration
judge in Minnesota within 7 days of an order adopting this Report and Recommendation,
and, if he is not granted a bond hearing within 7 days of such an order, that Petitioner be
immediately released.
Given Respondents’ non-specific arguments in their Response, the Court sets an
expedited deadline for objections to this Report and Recommendation. See D. Minn. LR
72.2(a)(1) (“A party may file and serve objections to the order within 14 days after being
served with a copy, unless the court sets a different deadline.”) (emphasis added). Any
CASE 0:26-cv-00306-MJD-ECW Doc. 8 Filed 01/22/26 Page 6 of 7

7
objections to this Report and Recommendation are due on January 25, 2026. Responses
to objections are due on January 28, 2026.
IV. 	RECOMMENDATION
Based on the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS RECOMMENDED
THAT: The Petition be GRANTED insofar as Respondents be ordered to hold a bond
hearing for Petitioner before an immigration judge in Minnesota within 7 days of an
order adopting this Report and Recommendation, and, if he is not granted a bond hearing
within 7 days of such an order, that Petitioner be immediately released.
Dated: January 22, 2026 s/ Elizabeth Cowan Wright
Elizabeth Cowan Wright
United States Magistrate Judge
NOTICE
Filing Objections: This Report and Recommendation is not an order or judgment of the
District Court and is therefore not appealable directly to the Eighth Circuit Court of
Appeals.
Under Local Rule 72.2(b)(1), “a party may file and serve specific written objections to a
magistrate judge’s proposed finding and recommendations within 14 days after being
served a copy” of the Report and Recommendation. The Court modifies this deadline
such that objections are due on or before January 25, 2026. See D. Minn. LR
72.2(a)(1) (“A party may file and serve objections to the order within 14 days after being
served with a copy, unless the court sets a different deadline.”). Responses to objections
are due on or before January 28, 2026. All objections and responses must comply with
the word or line limits set forth in Local Rule 72.2(c).
CASE 0:26-cv-00306-MJD-ECW Doc. 8 Filed 01/22/26 Page 7 of 7