Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Jose C-S,
Petitioner,
v.
Pamela Jo Bondi, et al.,
Respondents.
No. 26-cv-1460 (KMM/LIB)
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by
Petitioner Jose C-S. (Dkt. 1.) For the reasons that follow, the Petition is granted.
BACKGROUND
Jose C-S is a citizen of Mexico who has resided in the United States since January
2022. (Id. ¶ 40.) He entered the country without inspection and now resides in New Town,
North Dakota. (Id. ¶¶ 3, 40.) He also has two young children, both of whom as U.S.
Citizens. (Id. ¶ 41.) On September 19, 2025, Jose C-S was arrested by immigration officials
near Stanley, North Dakota. (Id. ¶ 43.) At no point was Jose C-S placed into removal
proceedings prior to his arrest. (Id. ¶ 3.) On November 20, 2025, an immigration judge
denied his application for asylum and ordered him removed. (Id.) Jose C-S subsequently
appealed that decision and that appeal is currently pending. (Id.) At the time of his Petition’s
filing, Jose C-S was detained at the Crow Wing County Jail in Minnesota. (Id. ¶ 44.)
Respondents’ primary position is that Petitioner is subject to mandatory detention
pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). (Dkt. 5.) They do not point to any other basis for his
CASE 0:26-cv-01460-KMM-LIB Doc. 7 Filed 02/18/26 Page 1 of 5

2
detention, do not suggest that he has criminal history triggering other mandatory detention
provisions, nor raise any other argument that Jose C-S’s situation alters the well-established
§ 1225(b)(2) analysis. In the alternative, Respondents argue that this case should be
transferred to the United States District Court for the District of North Dakota, where Jose
C-S was arrested. (Id. at 1–2.)
DISCUSSION
This case is one of many filed in recent months in this district challenging the
application of § 1225(b)(2) to aliens who are already in the United States, either having
entered without inspection or having been previously released pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226
or another statute. This Court has previously held that, because such people are not
“seeking admission,” as set forth in § 1225(b)(2), that provision—which mandates
detention—does not apply to them. See, e.g., Belsai D.S. v. Bondi, No. 25-cv-03682
(KMM/EMB), 2025 WL 2802947 (D. Minn. Oct. 1, 2025). The majority of courts to have
considered these issues have reached the same conclusion. Additionally, although the Fifth
Circuit just agreed with Respondents’ reading of § 1225(b)(2), the Seventh Circuit has
reached a different conclusion. Compare Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, No. 25-20496, 2026
WL 323330, at *4-10 (5th Cir. Feb. 6, 2026), with Castanon-Nava v. DHS, 161 F.4th 1048,
1061 (7th Cir. 2025). The Respondents’ position is that the cases representing the majority
view were wrongly decided and that the issue is currently pending before the Eighth Circuit
in Avila v. Bondi, No. 25-3248 (8th Cir. docketed Nov. 10, 2025). However, Respondents
acknowledge that this Court has rejected their position in prior cases, and they wish to
preserve their arguments for any appeal.
CASE 0:26-cv-01460-KMM-LIB Doc. 7 Filed 02/18/26 Page 2 of 5

3
Although the Court has considered the arguments raised by the government, and
reviewed the authority cited, the Court declines to repudiate its analysis from Belsai D.S.
and instead continues to follow the analysis of the strong majority of courts to have
considered the matter. Of course, these issues are complex, and the government’s
arguments are not frivolous. But the Court continues to believe that the better reading of
the relevant statutory scheme is that § 1225(b)(2) does not apply to Jose C-S or others who
are similarly situated, and his mandatory detention under that provision is not supported by
the law. And Respondents do not raise any argument that this analysis differs in this case.
The Court also notes that Jose C-S’s pending asylum appeal does not alter the
Court’s conclusion that detention under § 1225(b)(2) is not appropriate. As U.S. District
Court Judge Eric Tostrud recently noted in Ahmed M. v. Bondi et. Al, No. 25-cv-4711
(ECT/SGE), 2026 WL 25627, at *2 (D. Minn. Jan. 5, 2026) that “several courts have
determined that asylum applications filed in like circumstances do not change the
outcome.” Id. (collecting cases). The reasoning in Judge Tostrud’s opinion, and those of
the cases he references, is sound, and the Court declines to find that Jose C-S’s application
for asylum triggers mandatory detention under § 1225(b).
The Court also rejects Respondents’ request to transfer this case to the District of
North Dakota. Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426 (2004) states that the proper forum for a
habeas petition challenging physical detention is in the district where the petitioner is
confined. Id. at 443 (“[F]or core habeas petitions challenging present physical confinement,
jurisdiction lies in only one district: the district of confinement.”); id. at 442 (“Accordingly,
with respect to habeas petitions ‘designed to relieve an individual from oppressive
CASE 0:26-cv-01460-KMM-LIB Doc. 7 Filed 02/18/26 Page 3 of 5

4
confinement,’ the traditional rule has always been that the Great Writ is ‘issuable only in
the district of confinement.’” (quoting Carbo v. United States, 364 U.S. 611, 618 (1961)).
The district of confinement in this case is the District of Minnesota, as it was when this
Petition was filed. Accordingly, this District is the proper venue, and Respondents request
to transfer this Petition is denied.
Jose C-S alleges that he should be immediately released or granted a bond hearing.
The Court concludes that immediate release is appropriate in this case. The government
has not claimed to have a “warrant issued by the Attorney General” supporting his recent
arrest, nor has the government produced one to the Court. As Judge Tostrud also explained,
“[s]ection 1226 provides that ‘[o]n a warrant issued by the Attorney General, an alien may
be arrested and detained.’” Id. Judge Tostrud concluded that the issuance of a warrant is a
necessary prerequisite to even discretionary detention under § 1226(a), citing several
decisions from other districts. Id. In Ahmed M., like here, the petitioner had been rearrested
with no warrant, and there were no allegations of a violation of the conditions of his
previous release. Therefore, the appropriate remedy in Ahmed M. was immediate release
rather than a detention hearing. See also Juan S.R. v. Bondi, 26-cv-05 (PJS/LIB) (Order,
Dkt. 	8, 	Jan. 	12, 	2026) 	(same). 	Because 	the 	Court 	here 	has 	before 	it 	neither 	the
administrative warrant contemplated by § 1226, nor a suggestion that Jose C-S has done
something that justifies revoking his prior release, release is the correct remedy.
ORDER
Based on the above, and on the full record before the Court, IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED THAT:
CASE 0:26-cv-01460-KMM-LIB Doc. 7 Filed 02/18/26 Page 4 of 5

5
1. 	Petitioner Jose C-S’s Amended Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (Dkt. 1) is
GRANTED.
2. 	The Court DECLARES that Jose C-S is not subject to mandatory detention
under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) and ENJOINS Respondents from denying release
or other relief on the basis that he is subject to such mandatory detention.
3. 	The 	Court 	ORDERS 	Respondents 	to 	immediately 	release 	Jose 	C-S 	in
Minnesota, and without any new conditions, no later than 12:00 PM on
February 19, 2026.
4. 	Further, the Court ORDERS Respondents file a notice on ECF by no later than
12:00 PM on February 20, 2026 certifying his release. If Jose C-S has not been
released by that time, then Respondents shall advise the Court about the reasons
his release has not occurred, and the specific steps Respondents are undertaking
to ensure his immediate release in Minnesota.
5. 	Respondents must release Jose C-S with all of his personal property and
documents. That property may not be altered by Respondents and must be
returned in the same condition as when it was taken.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Date: February 18, 2026
s/Katherine Menendez
Katherine Menendez
United States District Judge
CASE 0:26-cv-01460-KMM-LIB Doc. 7 Filed 02/18/26 Page 5 of 5