Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Ixchell I. L. S., et al.,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-847 (MJD/JFD)
REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION
Petitioner Ixchell I. L. S. has filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Dkt. No.
1), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on behalf of herself and her two minor children.2 The
petition 	has 	been 	referred 	to 	the 	undersigned 	for 	the 	issuance 	of 	a 	report 	and
recommendation. Petitioner claims that she and her two children are being denied access
1 This District has adopted a policy of using only the first name and last initial of any
nongovernmental parties in immigration cases.
2 As a general matter, joint requests for habeas corpus relief are rarely appropriate, as
claims for habeas relief are so often dependent upon factual circumstances that differ from
petitioner to petitioner. (See Doe v. Bondi, No. 26-CV-293 (NED/JFD), Dkt. No. 6 (D.
Minn. Jan. 14, 2026).) This is one of those rare exceptions to the rule, as the primary
petitioner, Ixchell, is the parent of the two other petitioners, both of whom are minor
children. The relevant facts are the same between the petitioners, and the interests of justice
require a speedy return to Minnesota and release from ICE custody. Severance would
create unnecessary delays in effectuating that just outcome and may result in the children
being separated from their mother. The government does not seek severance, and the Court
finds that such a measure would cause additional, unnecessary harm to petitioners.
CASE 0:26-cv-00847-MJD-JFD Doc. 6 Filed 02/03/26 Page 1 of 6

2
to a bond hearing to which they is entitled under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). Respondents counter
that Petitioners are not eligible for a bond hearing because their 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. The Court further recommends that Respondents’ procedurally
improper Motion to Dismiss be denied because the factual basis that Respondents allege
strips jurisdiction from this Court occurred only because Respondents violated an order of
the Honorable Michael J. Davis, the District Judge assigned to this case.
The following facts are taken from the Petition. Petitioners are citizens of Venezuela.
(Pet. ¶ 7.) They have lived in the United States since 2024. (Pet. ¶ 12.) The primary
petitioner, Ixchell, was detained by Respondents on January 29, 2026 when she was
reporting, as requested, to immigration authorities, and upon her arrest, ICE demanded to
know the location of her minor children, who were at school at the time. (Pet. ¶ 16.) ICE
then called the school and threatened to raid the school if a school employee did not bring
the students to ICE, in order for those children to be detained. (Pet. ¶ 17.) “To protect the
other students, the headmaster drove the children to ICE,” where they were detained and
ultimately moved to Texas with their mother, Ixchell. (Id.) Respondents have refused to
provide them a bond hearing, citing Matter of Yajure Hurtado, 29 I. & N. Dec. 216 (BIA
2025).
Judge Davis has already held that 1) this Court’s “habeas jurisdiction attached at the
time of Petitioner’s apprehension in this District;” 2) “jurisdiction is not defeated by any
subsequent decision by Respondents to transfer Petitioner to another state;” 3) “Habeas
CASE 0:26-cv-00847-MJD-JFD Doc. 6 Filed 02/03/26 Page 2 of 6

3
jurisdiction turns on custody and control, not on the Government’s unilateral post-seizure
movement of the detainee;” and 4) “The position that jurisdiction lies exclusively in the
district to which Respondents transfer a petitioner would permit the Government to
determine the forum for judicial review through its own logistics. Federal courts may not
be divested of jurisdiction in that manner.” (Jan. 30, 2026 Order ¶ 4, Dkt. No. 3.)
In their response, Respondents challenge only the Court’s jurisdiction to decide this
case, not the legal basis for Petitioners’ detention. Respondents ignore, indeed do not even
acknowledge, that the Court has already ruled on its jurisdiction in this case, and the fact
that Respondents have deliberately violated the Court’s previous order cannot provide
grounds for a reconsideration of that determination. On January 30, 2026, at the same time
it made the above determinations regarding jurisdiction, the Court enjoined Respondents
from moving Petitioners from the District of Minnesota, (id. at ¶ 5) and ordered
Respondents, if they had already moved Petitioners from the District of Minnesota, to
immediately return Petitioners to Minnesota. (Id. at ¶ 6 (emphasis added).) Respondents’
response only argues that this Court does not retain jurisdiction because Petitioners are now
being held in Texas and alleges that Petitioners were in Texas at the time the petition was
filed. (See Resp. 1, Dkt. No. 5.)
Respondents’ argument is that they violated a court order and by doing so divested
this Court of jurisdiction. Not only is Respondents’ behavior procedurally improper, but
this Court takes it as a bald-faced admission that Respondents violated an order of this
Court. First, because the Court has already made a determination on jurisdiction in this
case, the procedurally appropriate way to challenge that determination would be through a
CASE 0:26-cv-00847-MJD-JFD Doc. 6 Filed 02/03/26 Page 3 of 6

4
request to file a motion to reconsider, pursuant to D. Minn. LR 7.1(j). No such request was
filed, and the Court can identify no “compelling circumstances” to recommend granting
such a request. See D. Minn. LR 7.1(j).
Second, by basing their response only on jurisdictional grounds (that this case
should be heard in Western District of Texas, rather than the District of Minnesota),
Respondents concede that Petitioners are currently being held in El Paso, Texas, in direct
contravention of the Court’s order to keep Petitioners in Minnesota or immediately return
them to Minnesota. Judge Davis anticipated the procedural gamesmanship attempted here
by 	Respondents 	and 	entered 	an 	order 	which, 	if 	followed, 	would 	have 	prevented
Respondents’ behavior. Nevertheless, Respondents violated that order. This violation of the
Court’s order is part of a systematic violation of court orders by the Respondents in this
District. Just last week, Chief Judge Patrick J. Schiltz held that,
This is one of dozens of court orders with which respondents have failed to
comply in recent weeks. The practical consequence of respondents’ failure to
comply has almost always been significant hardship to aliens (many of whom
have lawfully lived and worked in the United States for years and done
absolutely nothing wrong): The detention of an alien is extended, or an alien
who should remain in Minnesota is flown to Texas, or an alien who has been
flown to Texas is released there and told to figure out a way to get home.
This Court has been extremely patient with respondents, even though
respondents decided to send thousands of agents to Minnesota to detain
aliens without making any provision for dealing with the hundreds of habeas
petitions and other lawsuits that were sure to result. Respondents have
continually assured the Court that they recognize their obligation to comply
with Court orders, and that they have taken steps to ensure that those orders
will 	be 	honored 	going 	forward. 	Unfortunately, 	though, 	the 	violations
continue. The Court’s patience is at an end.
CASE 0:26-cv-00847-MJD-JFD Doc. 6 Filed 02/03/26 Page 4 of 6

5
(Juan T.R. v. Noem, et al, Order to Show Cause, 26‐CV‐0107 (PJS/DLM) (D. Minn. Jan.
26, 2026). The Court recommends that the Respondents be ordered to show cause as to
why they should not be held in contempt of court for violating the Court’s order.
The law and the facts of this case are similar to Beltran v. Bondi, No. 25-04604
(MJD/DTS), 2025 WL 3719856, at *1 (D. Minn. Dec. 23, 2025). In Beltran, Judge Davis
determined that § 1226(a) governs the detention of noncitizens who are already residing in
the United States, such as Petitioners—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, the Court recommends granting this petition on the same grounds as it
granted the petition in Beltran. The parties’ attention is directed to the shorter than usual
deadlines for filing 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 Ixchell I. L. S.’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 for both Ixchell and her
children;
CASE 0:26-cv-00847-MJD-JFD Doc. 6 Filed 02/03/26 Page 5 of 6

6
2. 	If Respondents do not provide Petitioners with a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1226(a), Petitioners be immediately released from detention; and
3. Respondents be ordered to show cause as to why they should not be held in contempt
of court for violating the Court’s January 30, 2026 Order.
Date: February 3, 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 February 5, 2026. Responses to objections are due on
or before February 6, 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-00847-MJD-JFD Doc. 6 Filed 02/03/26 Page 6 of 6