Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Fernando T.,
Petitioner,
v.
Kristi Noem, Secretary, U.S. Department of
Homeland Security; Department of
Homeland Security, in her official capacity;
Todd M. Lyons, Acting Director of
Immigration and Customs Enforcement;
Immigration and Customs Enforcement, in
his official capacity; Peter Berg, Director,
St. Paul Field Office, Immigration and
Customs Enforcement, in his official
capacity; Samuel J. Olson, Field Office
Director of Enforcement and Removal
Operations, Chicago Field Office,
Immigration and Customs Enforcement, in
his official capacity; and John Doe, Sheriff
of the Unknown County Jail in Unknown
County, Minnesota, custodian of detainees
of the Unknown County Jail,
Respondents.
File No. 26-cv-445 (ECT/EMB)
OPINION AND ORDER
Evangeline 	Surya 	Ester 	Dhawan-Maloney, 	Robichaud, 	Schroepfer 	& 	Correia, 	PA,
Minneapolis, MN; and Ronnie Santana, Santana Law PLLC, Edina, MN, for Petitioner
Fernando T.
Ana H. Voss, United States Attorney’s Office, Minneapolis, MN; and Jesus Cruz
Rodriguez, United States Attorney’s Office, Lawton, OK, for Respondents Kristi Noem,
Todd M. Lyons, Peter Berg, and Samuel J. Olson.
Petitioner Fernando T. is a Mexican citizen who entered the United States without
inspection in 2005. Pet. [ECF No. 1] ¶¶ 1, 11, 23. Fernando “has no criminal history.” Id.
CASE 0:26-cv-00445-ECT-EMB Doc. 13 Filed 01/24/26 Page 1 of 6

2
¶¶ 2, 24. 	On January 19, 2026, Fernando was detained by Immigration and Customs
Enforcement in St. Louis Park, Minnesota. Id. ¶ 3.1 	Fernando is scheduled to be back in
Minnesota on January 24, 2026, after being moved to El Paso, Texas, despite this Court’s
order enjoying his movement outside of the District of Minnesota during the pendency of
this Petition. See ECF Nos. 11–12. According to the Petition, Fernando “is a member of
the class certified by the court in Maldonado Bautista v. Noem, No. 5:25-CV-01873-SSS-
BFM, 2025 WL 3678485 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2025),” Pet. ¶ 8, and he “likely qualifies for
cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b,” id. ¶¶ 2, 24.
Fernando challenges his detention under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 	Pet. ¶¶ 17–19. 	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(a) detainee (whose detention is
discretionary and who is entitled to a bond hearing). Pet. ¶¶ 5–7, 26–45; see Jose J.O.E.
v. Bondi, 797 F. Supp. 3d 957, 961–62 (D. Minn. 2025) (explaining legal framework).
According to Fernando, that misclassification and denial of a bond hearing violate his right
to due process under the Fifth Amendment and the Immigration and Nationality Act. See
Pet. ¶¶ 43–49. 	Fernando seeks a declaration that his current detention without an
individualized determination is unlawful; issuance of a writ of habeas corpus requiring
Respondents to release him or provide a “prompt bond hearing to determine whether he
should remain in custody”; an order enjoining his transfer out of the District of Minnesota
1 	Neither party provided the Court with Fernando’s Notice to Appear or the other
paperwork we’ve usually received in these cases. In this case, it doesn’t matter. In their
response to Fernando’s habeas petition, Respondents did not contest any of the facts alleged
in the Petition. See ECF No. 9 at 1–2.
CASE 0:26-cv-00445-ECT-EMB Doc. 13 Filed 01/24/26 Page 2 of 6

3
during the pendency of his Petition; attorneys’ fees and costs; and “any further relief this
court deems just and proper.” Pet. at 14.
Acknowledging this case “presents similar legal and factual issues to prior habeas
petitions,” Respondents argue that the Fernando’s detention is mandatory under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1225 and thus that he is not eligible for a bond hearing. ECF No. 9 at 3. 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.
Fernando 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 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),
2 	To the extent Respondents challenge this Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction to
consider Fernando’s Petition, 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-00445-ECT-EMB Doc. 13 Filed 01/24/26 Page 3 of 6

4
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). Fernando has lived in the United States for more than 20 years. See Pet. ¶ 1. His
detention falls under § 1226(a) 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
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,
Respondents were ordered to include in their answer to Fernando’s Petition “[w]hether the
absence of a warrant preceding [Fernando’s] arrest necessitates [Fernando’s] immediate
CASE 0:26-cv-00445-ECT-EMB Doc. 13 Filed 01/24/26 Page 4 of 6

5
release.” ECF No. 7 at 2; see also ECF No. 5 at 2 (stating that “[t]he undersigned believes
that Petitioner was detained without a warrant solely on the basis of his appearance as a
hispanic male”). Respondents have not produced any warrant, nor have they advanced any
specific argument that Fernando’s release is an unwarranted remedy given the apparent
absence of a warrant.3 See ECF No. 9.
“[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)).4
3 	Respondents do not argue that Fernando is subject to mandatory detention pursuant
to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c), nor do they argue that a statutory scheme other than that raised in
the Petition would apply to Fernando’s detention.
4 	The resolution of this statutory-interpretation question in Fernando’s favor makes
it unnecessary to address the Petition’s remaining grounds.
CASE 0:26-cv-00445-ECT-EMB Doc. 13 Filed 01/24/26 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 Fernando T.’s Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus [ECF No. 1] is GRANTED as follows:
1. 	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.
3. 	Petitioner’s Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order [ECF No. 3] is
DENIED AS MOOT.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: January 24, 2026, at 5:45 p.m. 	s/ Eric C. Tostrud
Eric C. Tostrud
United States District Court
CASE 0:26-cv-00445-ECT-EMB Doc. 13 Filed 01/24/26 Page 6 of 6