Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
William M.,
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-346 (ECT/DJF)
OPINION AND ORDER
________________________________________________________________________
David L. Wilson and Gabriela Sophia Anderson, Wilson Law Group, Minneapolis, MN,
for Petitioner William M.
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 William M. is an Ecuadorian citizen who has resided in the United States
since in or about 2013, when he entered the country without inspection. Pet. [ECF No. 1]
¶¶ 27–28. “Respondents did not encounter [William] at the time of his entry.” 	Id. ¶ 29.
William has a pending U visa application for which he received a bona fide determination,
CASE 0:26-cv-00346-ECT-DJF Doc. 7 Filed 01/19/26 Page 1 of 6

2
and the Petition alleges that “[a]t the time of his detention, [William] had deferred action
and a valid employment authorization document.” 	Pet. ¶ 31; but see ECF No. 2-2 at 2
(“Because USCIS has determined your petition is bona fide and you warrant a favorable
exercise of discretion, you may be issued an employment authorization document and may
be placed in deferred action.” (emphasis added)). 	“Respondents detained [William] in
Minnesota on January 15, 2026.” Pet. ¶ 30. “Respondents detained [William] without a
warrant of arrest.” 	Id. ¶ 69. 	William “is presently held in ICE custody in Minnesota,”
though “[i]t is unknown which facility within Minnesota is holding him.” 	Id. ¶¶ 14, 36.
William “has no criminal history that subjects him to mandatory custody under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1226(c).” Id. ¶¶ 32, 35.
Here, William 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). Id. ¶¶ 2–4, 34, 37–62; see Jose J.O.E. v. Bondi, 797 F.
Supp. 3d 957, 961–62 (D. Minn. 2025) (explaining legal framework). 	According to
William, 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. 	Pet. ¶¶ 71–93. 	He seeks an order granting his “immediate
release” because he was “detained . . . without a warrant of arrest or apprehension”;
alternatively, an order requiring Respondents to hold a bond hearing pursuant to 8 U.S.C.
§ 	1226(a); 	a 	declaration 	that 	Respondents 	action 	is 	arbitrary 	and 	capricious, 	that
Respondents failed to adhere to their regulations, and that he is not subject to detention
CASE 0:26-cv-00346-ECT-DJF Doc. 7 Filed 01/19/26 Page 2 of 6

3
under § 1225(b)(2); a declaration that William’s detention absent a bond hearing violates
the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment; reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs; and
an order enjoining his transfer out of the District of Minnesota during the pendency of this
case. Id. ¶ 83; id. at 23–24.
In a one-paragraph response, Respondents state that William’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). ECF No. 5. This raises an issue
of statutory interpretation1 that courts in this District have repeatedly considered and
rejected, and it will be rejected here as well.
William 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 	To the extent Respondents challenge this Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction to
consider William’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-00346-ECT-DJF Doc. 7 Filed 01/19/26 Page 3 of 6

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).
William has lived in the United States for approximately twelve years. His detention falls
under § 1226 and not § 1225(b)(2).
The final issue is the appropriate remedy. 	Section 1226 provides that “[o]n a
warrant issued by the Attorney General, an alien may be arrested and detained.”
8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) (emphasis added). 	“Issuance of a warrant is a necessary condition to
justify 	discretionary 	detention 	under 	section 	1226(a).” 	Chogllo 	Chafla 	v.
Scott, --- F. Supp. 3d ---, No. 2:25-cv-00437, 2025 WL 2688541, at *11 (D. Me. Sep. 21,
2025), appeal filed (Nov. 7, 2025). 	“[I]t follows that absent a warrant a noncitizen may
not be arrested and detained under section 1226(a).” 	Id. (emphasis in original); accord
Chiliquinga Yumbillo v. Stamper, No. 2:25-cv-00479, 2025 WL 2783642, at *5 (D. Me.
Sep. 30, 2025); J.A.C.P. v. Wofford, No. 1:25-cv-01354, 2025 WL 3013328, at *8 (E.D.
Cal. Oct. 27, 2025); see also Florida v. United States, 660 F. Supp. 3d 1239, 1276 (N.D.
Fla. 2023) (stating § 1226 “is not even triggered unless an arrest warrant is issued” and that
“[i]f [an] alien has not been arrested on a warrant, then the subsequent provisions giving
CASE 0:26-cv-00346-ECT-DJF Doc. 7 Filed 01/19/26 Page 4 of 6

5
the Attorney General discretion to detain or release ‘the arrested alien’ are likewise not
triggered”), appeal dismissed, 2023 WL 5212561 (11th Cir. July 11, 2023). Here, William
requested in his Petition that he be immediately released because he was “detained without
a warrant of arrest.” 	Pet. ¶ 69; accord id. at 24. 	Respondents have not produced any
warrant, nor have they advanced any specific argument that William’s release is an
unwarranted remedy. See ECF No. 5.
“[R]elease is an available and appropriate remedy” for “detention that lacks a lawful
predicate.” 	Order on Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Vedat C. v. Bondi, No.
25-cv-4642 (JWB/DTS) (D. Minn. Dec. 19, 2025), ECF No. 9 at 6 (citing Munaf v. Geren,
553 U.S. 674, 693 (2008)). 	“Where the record shows Respondents have not identified a
valid statutory basis for detention in the first place, the remedy is not to supply one through
further proceedings.” 	Id.; see Chogllo Chafla, --- F. Supp. 3d ---, 2025 WL 2688541, at
*11 (“Since the Government did not comply with the plain language of section 1226(a),
[petitioners’] immediate release is justified.”); J.A.C.P., 2025 WL 3013328, at *8 (same);
Chiliquinga Yumbillo, 2025 WL 2783642, at *5 (reaching same conclusion); see also
Munaf, 553 U.S. at 693 (“Habeas is at its core a remedy for unlawful executive detention.
The typical remedy for such detention is, of course, release.” (citation modified)).
CASE 0:26-cv-00346-ECT-DJF Doc. 7 Filed 01/19/26 Page 5 of 6

6
ORDER
Therefore, based on the foregoing, and on all the files, records, and proceedings
herein, IT IS ORDERED THAT Petitioner William M.’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).
2. 	Respondents shall release Petitioner from custody as soon as practicable, but
not later than 48 hours after entry of this Order.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: January 19, 2026, at 2:25 p.m. 	s/ Eric C. Tostrud
Eric C. Tostrud
United States District Court
CASE 0:26-cv-00346-ECT-DJF Doc. 7 Filed 01/19/26 Page 6 of 6