Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Micaela T.,
Petitioner,
v.
Pamela Bondi, Attorney General; Kristi
Noem, Secretary, U.S. Department of
Homeland Security; Todd M. Lyons,
Acting Director of Immigration and
Customs Enforcement; and David
Easterwood, Acting Director, St. Paul Field
Office Immigration and Customs
Enforcement,
Respondents.
File No. 26-cv-1068 (ECT/ECW)
OPINION AND ORDER
Kira Aakre Kelley, Climate Defense Project, Minneapolis, MN, for Petitioner Maria T.
David W. Fuller and Trevor Brown, United States Attorney’s Office, Minneapolis, MN,
for Respondents Pamela Bondi, Kristi Noem, Todd M. Lyons, and David Easterwood.
Petitioner Micaela T. is an Ecuadorian citizen who has lived in the United States
since September 29, 2023. Pet. [ECF No. 1] ¶ 12. Micaela “has an active work permit”
and she “does not have a final order of removal.” 	Id. ¶ 13. 	On February 4, 2026,
Immigration 	and 	Customs 	Enforcement 	arrested 	Micaela 	“close 	to 	her 	home” 	in
Minneapolis as part of “Operation Metro Surge.” 	Id. ¶¶ 12, 15–16. 	Respondents have
provided a warrant for Micaela’s arrest. 	ECF No. 5-1.1 	Micaela was at least initially
1 	The Petition alleged “[u]pon information and belief” that Respondents had no
warrant for Micaela’s arrest. 	See Pet. ¶ 52. Respondents provided a copy of the warrant
CASE 0:26-cv-01068-ECT-ECW Doc. 6 Filed 02/10/26 Page 1 of 5

2
“brought to the Whipple,” but at the time of the Petition’s filing, Micaela’s location was
unknown. Pet. ¶¶ 7, 19.
Micaela challenges her detention under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Pet. ¶ 2. She claims she
has been wrongly classified as a § 1225(b)(2) detainee (whose detention is mandatory)
rather than a § 1226(a) detainee (whose detention is discretionary and who is entitled to a
bond hearing). 	Pet. ¶¶ 26–29; see Jose J.O.E. v. Bondi, 797 F. Supp. 3d 957, 961–62
(D. Minn. 	2025) 	(explaining 	legal 	framework). 	According 	to 	Micaela, 	that
misclassification and denial of a bond hearing violate her right to due process under the
Fifth Amendment, the Immigration and Nationality Act, and the Administrative Procedure
Act. See Pet. ¶¶ 30–46. Micaela seeks issuance of a writ of habeas corpus requiring her
release unless Respondents provide a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a); issuance of
an order enjoining her transfer outside of the District of Minnesota during the pendency of
her Petition; and “any other and further relief that this Court may deem just and proper.”
Pet. at 14–15.
Recognizing that “[t]his petition raises legal and factual issues similar to those in
prior habeas petitions this Court has decided,” Respondents argue that Micaela’s 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). 	See ECF No. 4 at 1–2. 	This raises an issue of statutory
with their answer. 	See ECF No. 4 at 2; ECF No. 5-1. 	Micaela did not file a reply or
otherwise question the warrant’s authenticity.
CASE 0:26-cv-01068-ECT-ECW Doc. 6 Filed 02/10/26 Page 2 of 5

3
interpretation2 that courts in this District have repeatedly considered and rejected, and it
will be rejected here as well.
Micaela has shown she has been misclassified under § 1225(b)(2) rather than
§ 1226(a). 	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),
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,
two federal courts of appeals have ruled on the question, one reaching and one rejecting
this conclusion. See Castañon-Nava v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 161 F.4th 1048, 1062
(7th Cir. 2025) (concluding that respondent was not likely to prevail on the merits that
2 	To the extent Respondents challenge this Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction to
consider Micaela’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-01068-ECT-ECW Doc. 6 Filed 02/10/26 Page 3 of 5

4
petitioner was subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)); Buenrostro-Mendez v.
Bondi, --- F.4th ---, Nos. 25-20496, 25-40701, 2026 WL 323330, at *1 (5th Cir. Feb. 6,
2026) (finding petitioner was subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)). Micaela
has lived in the United States for more than two years, Pet. ¶ 12, and I find her detention
falls under § 1226(a) and not § 1225(b)(2).3 	She is therefore subject to discretionary
detention and entitled to a bond hearing.4
ORDER
Therefore, based on the foregoing, and on all the files, records, and proceedings
herein, IT IS ORDERED THAT Petitioner Micaela T.’s Verified 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, pursuant to the discretionary provisions of 8
U.S.C. § 1226.
3 	Respondents do not argue that Micaela is subject to mandatory detention pursuant
to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c), or that any other statutory scheme other than that raised in the
Petition would apply to Micaela’s detention. See ECF No. 4.
4 	The resolution of this statutory-interpretation issue in Micaela’s favor makes it
unnecessary to address the Petition’s remaining grounds.
CASE 0:26-cv-01068-ECT-ECW Doc. 6 Filed 02/10/26 Page 4 of 5

5
2. 	Respondents are ENJOINED from denying Petitioner a bond hearing on the
basis that 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) applies to Petitioner, and Respondents shall provide
Petitioner with a bond hearing in accordance with 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a)(2)(A).
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: February 10, 2026 	s/ Eric C. Tostrud
Eric C. Tostrud
United States District Court
CASE 0:26-cv-01068-ECT-ECW Doc. 6 Filed 02/10/26 Page 5 of 5