Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Edwin C. R.,1
Petitioner,
v.
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,
Respondents.
Case No. 26-CV-355 (MJD/JFD)
REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION
Petitioner Edwin C. R. has filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Dkt. No. 1),
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The petition has been referred to the undersigned for the
issuance of a report and recommendation. Petitioner claims he is being denied access to a
bond hearing to which he is entitled under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). Respondents counter that
Petitioner is not eligible for a bond hearing because his detention is mandatory under 8
U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). For the reasons set forth in Beltran v. Bondi, No. 25-04604
(MJD/DTS), 2025 WL 3719856, at *1 (D. Minn. Dec. 23, 2025), the Court recommends
that the petition be granted.
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-00355-MJD-JFD Doc. 8 Filed 01/21/26 Page 1 of 3

2
Petitioner is a citizen of Ecuador. (Pet. ¶ 21.) He entered the United States without
inspection in 2024. (Pet. ¶ 38.) He was detained by Respondents on January 15, 2026. (Pet.
¶ 42.) Respondents have refused to provide him a bond hearing, citing Matter of Yajure
Hurtado, 29 I. & N. Dec. 216 (BIA 2025). Petitioner has no pending criminal charges or
criminal history that would subject him to mandatory custody under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c).
(Pet. ¶ 44.) On the date he filed his petition, Petitioner was held in ICE custody in
Minnesota. (Pet. ¶ 45.)
Respondents concede this case is like Santos M.C. v. Olson, No. 25-cv-4264
(PJS/DJF), 2025 WL 3281787 (D. Minn. Nov. 25, 2025) and Beltran v. Bondi, No. 25-
04604 (MJD/DTS), 2025 WL 3719856, at *1 (D. Minn. Dec. 23, 2025). (Resp’ts’ Resp. at
3, Dkt. No. 6.) In Beltran, the Honorable Michael J. Davis, who is the United States District
Judge assigned to this case, determined that § 1226(a) governs the detention of noncitizens
who are already residing in the United States, such as Petitioner—not § 1225(b)(2), which
governs the detention of noncitizens seeking admission into the United States. Beltran,
2025 WL 3719856, at *3. If seeking admission, a noncitizen is subject to mandatory
detention and not entitled to a bond hearing; if already residing in the United States,
detention is discretionary, and the noncitizen is entitled to a bond hearing. Id.
Respondents have not shown how this case is materially distinguishable from
Beltran. Thus, it is unlikely that Judge Davis would conclude in this case that the
Respondents’ position is correct. The Court therefore recommends that the petition be
granted. The parties’ attention is directed to the shorter than usual deadlines for filing
CASE 0:26-cv-00355-MJD-JFD Doc. 8 Filed 01/21/26 Page 2 of 3

3
objections to this Report and Recommendation and for filing responses to those objections,
set forth in the “Notice” below.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:
1. Petitioner Edwin C. R.’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Dkt. No. 1) be
GRANTED insofar as Respondents be ordered to hold a bond hearing under 8
U.S.C. § 1226(a) before an immigration judge in Minnesota within seven days of
an order adopting this Report and Recommendation; and
2. 	If Respondents do not provide Petitioner with a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1226(a), Petitioner be immediately released from detention.
Dated: January 21, 2026 	s/ John F. Docherty
JOHN F. DOCHERTY
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 D. Minn. LR 72.2(b)(1), “[a] party may file and serve specific written
objections to a magistrate judge’s proposed findings and recommendations within 14 days
after being served with a copy of the recommended disposition, unless the court sets a
different deadline.” (Emphasis added.) The Court modifies the deadline such that
objections are due on or before January 22, 2026. Responses to objections are due on
or before January 26, 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-00355-MJD-JFD Doc. 8 Filed 01/21/26 Page 3 of 3