Ferrera Bejarano v. Bondi et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
WUILMER F.B.,
Petitioner,
v.
PAMELA 	BONDI, 	Attorney 	General,
KRISTI 	NOEM, 	Secretary, 	U.S.
Department 	of 	Homeland 	Security,
DEPARTMENT 	OF 	HOMELAND
SECURITY, 	TODD M. 	LYONS, 	Acting
Director 	of 	Immigration 	and 	Customs
Enforcement, 	IMMIGRATION 	AND
CUSTOMS 	ENFORCEMENT, 	SIRCE
OWEN, 	Acting 	Director 	for 	Executive
Office 	of 	Immigration 	Review,
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION
REVIEW, SAM OLSON, Director, St. Paul
Field Office Immigration and Customs
Enforcement, ERIC TOLLEFSON, Sheriff
of Kandiyohi County,
Respondents.
Case No. 25‐CV‐3236 (NEB/JFD)
ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION AND
ORDER ON WRIT FOR PETITION OF
HABEAS CORPUS
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Wuilmer F.B.’s Amended Petition for
a Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 24 (“Am. Pet.”).) Wuilmer F.B. was in Immigration
and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) detention when he filed his initial petition, asserting
that 	his 	detention 	was 	governed 	by 	8 	U.S.C. 	Section 	1226(a), 	not 	8 	U.S.C.
Section 1225(b)(2). The Court issued a preliminary injunction and Wuilmer F.B. has since
CASE 0:25-cv-03236-NEB-JFD Doc. 38 Filed 02/18/26 Page 1 of 9

2
been released from detention. Wuilmer F.B. now seeks, among other things, declaratory
relief declaring that he is not subject to detention under Section 1225(b)(2). Respondents
argue that his petition is moot.
In a Report and Recommendation, United States Magistrate Judge John F.
Docherty recommends granting Wuilmer F.B.’s amended petition. (ECF No. 35 (“R&R”).)
Because Respondents object to the R&R, (ECF No. 36 (“Objection”)), the Court reviews
the R&R de novo. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). For the reasons stated below,
the Court overrules the objection, accepts the R&R, and grants the amended petition in
part.
BACKGROUND
Wuilmer F.B. is a citizen of Honduras who has lived in the United States since
2018, when he entered the country without inspection. (Am. Pet. ¶¶ 50–51.) ICE took him
into custody in early July 2025, holding him under Section 1225(b)(2)(A). (Id. ¶¶ 52, 60,
71.) At a custody redetermination hearing on August 7, 2025, an immigration judge (“IJ”)
found that Wuilmer F.B. was not subject to mandatory custody under Section 1225(b)(2)
and that Section 1226(a) governed his detention. (Id. ¶¶ 71–73.)
The IJ set a bond amount, which Wuilmer F.B. was prepared to pay, but
Respondents did not release him. (Am. Pet. ¶¶ 74.) Instead, Respondents invoked an
automatic stay of the IJ’s release order pursuant to 8 C.F.R. Section 1003.19(i)(2). (Id.)
CASE 0:25-cv-03236-NEB-JFD Doc. 38 Filed 02/18/26 Page 2 of 9

3
Wuilmer F.B. filed his initial petition on August 12, 2025, when the automatic stay was
the basis for his detention. (See ECF No. 1.)
The Court held a preliminary injunction hearing on August 18, 2025. (ECF No. 17.)
Applying the three‐part Mathews v. Eldridge test1 to evaluate whether the automatic stay
provision violated Wuilmer F.B.’s procedural due process rights, the Court determined
that he was likely to succeed on this claim. (ECF No. 23 (“Tr.”) at 30.) As part of that
balancing test, the Court reasoned that Wuilmer F.B.’s detention fell under Section
1226(a), not Section 1225(b)(2), because he was a noncitizen who was already present in
the United States. (Id. at 32.) And Section 1226(a) entitles a detainee to a bond hearing
before an IJ at any time. (Id. at 31.) Thus, the automatic stay created a substantial risk of
erroneous 	deprivation 	of 	Wuilmer 	F.B.’s 	interest 	in 	being 	free 	from 	arbitrary
confinement. (Id. at 32–33.) The Court concluded that all three Mathews factors supported
the claim that the automatic stay violated Wuilmer F.B.’s Fifth Amendment procedural
due process rights. (Id. at 34.)
1 In Mathews v. Eldridge, the Supreme Court laid out three factors to consider: (1) “the
private interest that will be affected by the official action”; (2) “the risk of an erroneous
deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any,
of additional or substitute procedural safeguards:’ and (3) “the Government’s interest,
including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the
additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail.” 424 U.S. 319, 335 (1976).
CASE 0:25-cv-03236-NEB-JFD Doc. 38 Filed 02/18/26 Page 3 of 9

4
In 	granting 	the 	motion 	for 	a 	preliminary 	injunction, 	the 	Court 	enjoined
Respondents “from enforcing the automatic stay provision as to this petitioner during
the pendency of the court’s consideration of the petition for writ of habeas corpus.” (Id.
at 36.) The Court also ordered Respondents to release Wuilmer F.B. and post bond in
accordance with the IJ’s ruling. (Id.) Wuilmer F.B. was released from custody on August
19, 2025 and remains out of custody. (Am. Pet. ¶ 76.)
About 	one 	month 	later, 	Wuilmer 	F.B. 	filed 	an 	amended 	habeas 	petition.
Respondents ask the Court to deny the amended petition as moot because Wuilmer F.B.
is no longer in custody. (ECF No. 25 at 1.) Wuilmer F.B. contends that, should the Court
deny the amended petition as moot, the preliminary injunction would end and
Respondents could return him to custody. (Id. ¶ 78.) Because Respondents have since
withdrawn the appeal of the IJ’s bond decision, Wuilmer F.B. notified the Court that “[i]t
is no longer necessary for the Court to address the automatic stay portion of Petitioner’s
claim,” and instead focus only on whether Section 1225 or Section 1226 governs his
detention. (ECF No. 34 ¶¶ 5–6.)
In the R&R, Judge Docherty concludes that Wuilmer F.B.’s amended petition is not
moot under the capable‐of‐repetition‐yet‐evading‐review exception. (R&R at 7–9.) And
on the merits, the R&R determines that Wuilmer F.B. is subject to detention under Section
1226, not Section 1225. (Id. at 9–10.)
CASE 0:25-cv-03236-NEB-JFD Doc. 38 Filed 02/18/26 Page 4 of 9

5
ANALYSIS
I. 	Mootness
“Article III of the United States Constitution limits the jurisdiction of the federal
courts to actual, ongoing cases and controversies.” Haden v. Pelofsky, 212 F.3d 466, 469
(8th Cir. 2000). If an action is moot because it no longer presents a case or controversy, a
federal court “ha[s] no discretion and must dismiss the action for lack of jurisdiction.” Id.,
419 F.3d at 724.
But “a petitioner’s release from custody does not automatically render his petition
moot.” Estrada‐Heredia v. Holder, No. 12‐CV‐1157 (SRN/SER), 2012 WL 4839113, at *2 (D.
Minn. Sept. 25, 2012) (citing Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998)). “When . . . the issues
presented in a case lose their life because of the passage of time or a change in
circumstances . . . and a federal court can no longer grant effective relief, the case is
considered moot.” Ali v. Cangemi, 419 F.3d 722, 723 (8th Cir. 2005). Put another way, a
habeas petition would be moot when even if the Court were to grant “every bit of the
relief [petitioner] seeks in his supplemental habeas petition, [he] would find himself in
precisely the situation in which he already finds himself.” Kargbo v. Brott, No. 15‐CV‐2713
(PJS/LIB), 2016 WL 3676162, at *1 (D. Minn. July 6, 2016).
CASE 0:25-cv-03236-NEB-JFD Doc. 38 Filed 02/18/26 Page 5 of 9

6
For Wuilmer F.B., the threat of re‐detention looms. Nielsen v. Preap, 586 U.S. 392,
403 (2019) (plurality opinion) (“Unless that preliminary injunction was made permanent
and was not disturbed on appeal, [petitioner] faced the threat of re‐arrest and mandatory
detention.”). Respondents have not disavowed an attempt to re‐detain him under
§ 1225(b)(2) once the Court’s preliminary injunction expires.
Although Wuilmer F.B. no longer has a basis to request injunctive relief—the
Court cannot order Respondents to release a petitioner who is already out of detention—
his request for prospective declaratory relief persists. (Am. Pet. ¶¶ 189–90.) Granting this
relief would offer Wuilmer F.B. some measure of the protection he seeks: “[a] declaratory
judgment is meant to define the legal rights and obligations of the parties in anticipation
of some future conduct.” Just. Net. Inc. v. Craighead Cnty., 931 F.3d 753, 764 (8th Cir. 2019).
In issuing the preliminary injunction, the Court concluded only that Wuilmer F.B.
had a likelihood of success on the merits. (Tr. at 32.) The Court has not yet reached a final
disposition as to whether his detention is governed by Section 1225(b)(2) or Section
1226(a). Thus, Wuilmer F.B. has a “legally cognizable interest in the outcome” of his
habeas petition. Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc., 568 U.S. 85, 91 (2013).
II. 	Merits
Wuilmer F.B. is one of hundreds of petitioners in the District who have challenged
their custody without an individualized bond determination. Like those petitioners,
CASE 0:25-cv-03236-NEB-JFD Doc. 38 Filed 02/18/26 Page 6 of 9

7
Wuilmer F.B. argues he has been misclassified as a detainee under 8 U.S.C. Section
1225(b)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) rather than Section 1226(a).
(Am. Pet. ¶¶ 189–90.) Detention is mandatory under Section 1225(b)(2), but discretionary
under Section 1226(a); and Section 1226(a), unlike Section 1225, provides for a bond
hearing. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1225, 1226; see also Jose J.O.E. v. Bondi, 797 F. Supp. 3d 957, 961–62 (D.
Minn. 2025) (describing the legal framework of Sections 1225 and 1226).
Because he has been living in the United States since he entered the country over
eight years ago, Wuilmer F.B. asserts that Section 1226, rather than Section 1225, applies.
(Am. Pet. ¶¶ 51, 190.) He therefore argues that his detention under Section 1225(b)(2)
violates the Fifth Amendment, the INA and its implementing regulations, and the
Administrative Procedure Act. (Am. Pet. ¶¶ 188–235.)
The Court has already concluded that petitioners similarly situated to Wuilmer
F.B. are governed by Section 1226 rather than Section 1225. Andres R.E. v. Bondi, No. 25‐
CV‐3946 (NEB/DLM), 2025 WL 3146312 (D. Minn. Nov. 4, 2025). Section 1225(b)(2)
applies to applicants “seeking admission,” but the government did not detain Wuilmer
F.B. while he was entering the United States. Instead, he was detained while “already in
the country.” See Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281, 289 (2018) (construing 8 U.S.C.
Sections 1226(a) and (c)). So, Section 1226 applies.
CASE 0:25-cv-03236-NEB-JFD Doc. 38 Filed 02/18/26 Page 7 of 9

8
The Court is not alone in its decision; rather, the majority of courts to rule on the
matter came to the same conclusion as R.E. See, e.g., Castañon‐Nava v. U.S. Dep’t of
Homeland Sec., 161 F.4th 1048, 1060–62 (7th Cir. 2025); 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); 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).
Besides arguing that the case is moot, Respondents do not otherwise attempt to
show cause for why the merits discussion of the R&R is wrong.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing and on all the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. 	Respondents’ Objection (ECF No. 36) is OVERRULED;
2. 	The Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 35) is ACCEPTED;
3. 	Wuilmer F.B.’s Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 24)
is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Specifically, the Court:
CASE 0:25-cv-03236-NEB-JFD Doc. 38 Filed 02/18/26 Page 8 of 9

9
a. 	DECLARES that Wuilmer F.B. is not subject to mandatory detention
under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2);
b. 	ENJOINS Respondents from detaining Wuilmer F.B. on the basis of
mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2); and
4. 	The 	remainder 	of 	Wuilmer 	F.B.’s 	Petition 	is 	DENIED 	WITHOUT
PREJUDICE.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: February 18, 2026 	BY THE COURT:
s/Nancy E. Brasel
Nancy E. Brasel
United States District Judge
CASE 0:25-cv-03236-NEB-JFD Doc. 38 Filed 02/18/26 Page 9 of 9