Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
CIVIL NO. 26-597(DSD/LIB)
Jose V.,
Petitioner,
v.
David Easterwood, Acting
Director, St. Paul Field
Office, Immigration and Customs
Enforcement; Jose D. Garcia,
Field Office Director, El Paso
Field Office, U.S. Immigration
and Customs Enforcement; Todd
M. Lyons, Acting Director of
Immigration and Customs
Enforcement; and David
Easterwood, Acting Director,
St. Paul Field Office,
Immigration and Customs
Enforcement; Kristi Noem, U.S.
Department of Homeland
Security; U.S. Department of
Homeland Security; U.S.
Immigration and Customs
Enforcement; and Pamela Bondi,
Attorney General;
Respondents.
ORDER
This matter is before the court upon the petition for writ of
habeas 	corpus. 	Based 	on 	a 	review 	of 	the 	file, 	record, 	and
proceedings herein, the court grants the petition.
Petitioner Jose V. is a citizen of Guatemala. 	Pet. ¶ 6. 	Jose
entered the United States on October 4, 2023, and has been living
in Minnesota since then. 	Id. ¶ 2. 	Upon entry, he was detained at
the 	border 	and 	was 	released 	with 	a 	notice 	to 	appear 	for 	ordinary
CASE 0:26-cv-00597-DSD-LIB Doc. 9 Filed 01/28/26 Page 1 of 4

2
removal proceedings under 8 U.S.C. § 1229. 	Id. 	Jose applied for
asylum within one year of entry. 	Id. ¶ 3. 	He was granted a work
authorization in June 2025. 	Id.
On 	January 	6, 	2026, 	respondents 	arrested 	and 	detained 	Jose.
Id. 	¶ 4. 	He has been moved twice since his arrest, first to Texas
and then to New Mexico. 	Id. ¶ 9.
On January 23, 2026, Jose filed the instant petition under 28
U.S.C. § 2241, challenging his detention and requesting immediate
release or an expedited bond hearing. 	The narrow issue presented
is whether Jose is subject to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2), which mandates
detention, or 8 U.S.C. § 1226, which is discretionary with respect
to detention pending a bond hearing. 	Jose argues that respondents
have 	erroneously 	classified 	him 	as 	falling 	under 	§ 1225(b)(2),
which 	violates 	his 	Fifth 	Amendment 	right 	to 	due 	process, 	the
Immigration 	and 	Nationality 	Act, 8 	U.S.C.
§§ 1225(b)(2) and 1226(a), 	and 	related 	regulations, 	the
Administrative 	Procedures 	Act, 	5 	U.S.C. 	§ 706(2)(A), 	and 	the
Fourth Amendment. 	Id. ¶¶ 28-.
The issue presented has been ruled on by many judges in this
district 	and 	beyond. 	The 	great 	weight 	of 	authority 	persuasively
holds 	that 	Jose 	and 	others 	in 	his 	circumstances 	have 	been
improperly 	detained 	under 	§ 	1225(b)(2) and 	should 	be 	allowed 	the
processes available under § 1226. 	See Elias C. v. Bondi, No. 26-
cv-307, 2026 WL 145962 (D. Minn. Jan. 20, 2026) (collecting cases).
CASE 0:26-cv-00597-DSD-LIB Doc. 9 Filed 01/28/26 Page 2 of 4

3
Indeed, courts have overwhelmingly ruled that § 1225(b)(2) applies
to 	applicants 	“seeking 	admission,” 	and 	that 	§ 	1226 	applies 	to
“aliens 	already 	in 	the 	country.” 	See 	id. 	The 	court 	agrees 	with
such authority and will follow suit without additional discussion.
The 	court 	is 	not 	persuaded 	that 	Jose’s 	asylum 	application 	should
yield a different result. 	See Yessenia S.T. v. Bondi, No. 26-cv-
30, 2026 WL 102407 (D. Minn. Jan. 14, 2026).
Respondents 	argue 	that 	the 	court 	lacks 	jurisdiction 	to 	hear
this matter because Jose is not being detained in Minnesota. 	They
seek 	dismissal 	or 	transfer 	of 	the 	case 	to 	the 	district 	of 	his
detention.1 	The court disagrees with respondents. 	Jose has lived
here 	for 	over 	two 	years, 	was 	arrested 	here, 	and 	was 	initially
detained 	here. 	As 	has 	been 	held 	in 	this 	district, 	venue 	remains
proper 	in 	Minnesota 	under 	these 	circumstances. 	See 	Jose 	A. 	v.
Noem, No. 26-cv-480, 2026 WL 172524 (D. Minn. Jan. 22, 2026); Sue
H. 	v. 	Trump, 	No. 	26-cv-416, 	ECF 	NO. 	3, 	at 	2 	(D. 	Minn. 	Jan. 	20,
2026).
The 	issue 	of 	Jose’s 	location 	raises 	another 	issue. 	In 	its
order 	to 	show 	cause 	dated 	January 	25, 	2026, 	ECF 	No. 	5, 	the 	court
ordered respondents to immediately return Jose to Minnesota. 	Id.
at 2-3. 	By all accounts, they have failed to do so. 	As a result,
1 	There is confusion as to where Jose is located. 	His counsel
represents 	that 	Jose 	is 	in 	New 	Mexico 	while 	respondents 	contend
that he is in Texas.
CASE 0:26-cv-00597-DSD-LIB Doc. 9 Filed 01/28/26 Page 3 of 4

4
the court orders respondents to show cause why they should not be
held in contempt for violating the court’s January 25, 2026, order.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the 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), 	and 	is 	instead 	subject 	to 	detention, 	if 	at
all, under the discretionary provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1226;
2. 	Respondents 	shall 	provide 	petitioner 	a 	bond 	hearing 	in
accordance with 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a)(2)(A) within seven days of the
date of this order;
3. 	If 	Respondents 	do 	not 	provide 	Petitioner 	with 	a 	bond
hearing 	under 8 	U.S.C. 	§ 	1226(a) as 	required 	herein, 	petitioner
must be immediately released from detention;
4. 	If 	petitioner 	is 	still 	located 	outside 	the 	District 	of
Minnesota, 	respondents 	shall 	return 	him 	here 	within 	24 	hours 	of
the issuance of this order; and
5. 	Respondents 	are 	ordered 	to 	show 	cause 	why 	they 	should
not be held in contempt for violating the court’s January 25, 2026,
order. 	Respondents 	shall 	file 	a 	brief 	directed 	to 	this 	issue 	by
January 30, 2026.
Dated: 	January 28, 2026 	/s David S. Doty 	__
David S. Doty, Judge
United Stated District Court
CASE 0:26-cv-00597-DSD-LIB Doc. 9 Filed 01/28/26 Page 4 of 4