Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Elias 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; Sirce Owen, Acting Director
for Executive Office for Immigration
Review; Executive Office for Immigration
Review; Samuel Olson, Acting Director, St.
Paul Field Office Immigration and Customs
Enforcement; and Joel Brott, Sheriff of
Sherburne County,
Respondents.
File No. 26-cv-307 (ECT/SGE)
OPINION AND ORDER
Carrie Huxford Peltier, Peltier Law PLLC, Roseville, MN, for Petitioner Elias 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, Sirce Owen, Executive Office for Immigration Review, and Samuel
Olson.
Petitioner Elias C. is a Venezuelan citizen who has resided in the United States since
August 9, 2023, when he entered without inspection. 	Pet. [ECF No. 1] ¶¶ 15, 35. 	Elias
and his family “were encountered by immigration officials shortly after entry.” 	Id. ¶ 36.
They were “held for three days at the border and then released to a family member near
CASE 0:26-cv-00307-ECT-SGE Doc. 5 Filed 01/20/26 Page 1 of 5

2
Indianapolis, Indiana.” 	Id. ¶ 37. 	Elias “was charged in a Notice to Appear as an alien
present without admission or parole under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i).” 	Id. ¶ 38. 	On
December 29, 2023, Elias filed a Form I-589 Application for Asylum. Id. ¶ 39. On June
27, 2024, Elias “was issued an employment authorization document.” 	Id. ¶ 40. 	“At the
time of [Elias’s] arrest by ICE, he had valid authorization to work and an upcoming court
date set for June 2026.” Id. ¶ 41. On December 27, 2025, “Respondents took [Elias] into
custody.” 	Id. ¶ 42. 	He is currently in custody at an ICE detention center in Elk River,
Minnesota. Id. ¶ 16.
Here, Elias challenges his detention under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Id. ¶ 8. He claims he
has been wrongly classified as an 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) detainee (whose detention is
mandatory) rather than an 8 U.S.C. § 1226 detainee (whose detention is discretionary and
who is entitled to a bond hearing). Pet. ¶¶ 44–70; see Jose J.O.E. v. Bondi, 797 F. Supp.
3d 957, 961–62 (D. Minn. 2025) (explaining legal framework). 	According to Elias, that
misclassification and denial of a bond hearing violate his right to due process under the
Fifth Amendment, the Administrative Procedure Act, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1225(b)(2) and 1226(a),
and § 1226’s implementing regulations. See Pet. ¶¶ 82–101. He seeks a declaration that
his detention absent a bond hearing is unlawful under the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process
Clause; issuance of a writ of habeas corpus ordering Respondents to set a bond hearing
pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a); an order enjoining his transfer out of the District of
Minnesota during the pendency of this case; a finding that the administrative decision
violates the Administrative Procedure Act; an order directing the immigration court not to
follow the Board of Immigration Appeal’s decision in Matter of Yajure Hurtado, 29 I&N
CASE 0:26-cv-00307-ECT-SGE Doc. 5 Filed 01/20/26 Page 2 of 5

3
Dec. 216 (BIA Sept. 5, 2025); attorneys’ fees and costs; and “all further relief this Court
deems just and proper.” Pet. at 27–28.
In a one-paragraph response, Respondents1 state that Elias’s petition “raises legal
and factual issues similar to those in prior habeas petitions this Court has decided,” and
argues that the petition fails on the merits for the same reasons set forth in the appeal of
Avila v. Bondi, No. 25-cv-3741 (JRT/SGE), 2025 WL 2976539 (D. Minn. Oct. 21, 2025),
appeal docketed, No. 25-3248 (8th Cir. Nov. 10, 2025). See ECF No. 4 at 1. This raises
an issue of statutory interpretation2 that courts in this District have repeatedly considered
and rejected, and it will be rejected here as well.
Elias 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
1 	When used in this Order, “Respondents” refers to the federal officials named as
Respondents. 	Respondent Joel Brott, the Sherburne County Sheriff, has not appeared in
these proceedings.
2 	To the extent Respondents challenge this Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction to
consider Elias’s petition by way of their response in Avila, 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-00307-ECT-SGE Doc. 5 Filed 01/20/26 Page 3 of 5

4
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). Elias
has lived in the United States for more than two years. 	His detention falls under § 1226
and not § 1225(b)(2).
For these reasons, Elias is subject to discretionary detention and entitled to a bond
hearing.3
ORDER
Therefore, based on the foregoing, and on all the files, records, and proceedings
herein, IT IS ORDERED THAT Petitioner Elias C.’s 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.
3 	Elias’s remaining arguments will not be addressed.
CASE 0:26-cv-00307-ECT-SGE Doc. 5 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-00307-ECT-SGE Doc. 5 Filed 01/20/26 Page 5 of 5