Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
CIVIL NO. 26-335(DSD/DJF)
Sara G.,
Petitioner,
v.
Pamela Bondi, Attorney General;
Kristi Noem, U.S. Department of
Homeland Security; Department
of Homeland Security; Todd M.
Lyons, Acting Director of
Immigration and Customs
Enforcement; Immigration and
Customs Enforcement; Daren K.
Margolin, Director for
Executive Office for
Immigration Review; Executive
Office for Immigration Review;
and David Easterwood, Acting
Director, St. Paul Field
Office, Immigration and Customs
Enforcement,
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 	Sara 	G. 	a 	native 	and 	citizen 	of 	Guatemala. 	Pet.
¶ 	27. 	Sara 	entered 	the 	United 	states 	without 	inspection 	over
thirty years ago. 	Id. ¶ 28. 	There is no dispute that Sara has no
criminal history and that she has not applied for legal status in
the United States. 	On January 15, 2026, respondents detained Sara.
CASE 0:26-cv-00335-DSD-DJF Doc. 7 Filed 01/21/26 Page 1 of 3

2
Id. 	¶ 29. 	She 	remains 	in 	respondents’ 	custody 	in 	Minnesota,
although her exact location is unknown. 	Id. ¶ 35.
Through 	her 	petition, 	brought 	under 	28 	U.S.C. 	§ 	2241, 	Sara
challenges 	her 	detention 	and 	requests 	immediate 	release 	or 	an
expedited bond hearing, as well as declarative relief. 	The narrow
issue 	presented 	is 	whether 	Sara 	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.
Pet. 	¶¶ 	36-60. 	She 	argues 	that 	respondents 	have 	erroneously
classified 	her 	as 	falling 	under 	§ 1225(b)(2), 	which 	violates 	her
Fifth 	Amendment 	right 	to 	due 	process, 	the 	Immigration 	and
Nationality 	Act, 8 	U.S.C. 	§§ 1225(b)(2) and 1226(a), 	and 	related
regulations. 	Id. ¶¶ 70–92.
The issue presented has been ruled on by many judges in this
district 	and 	beyond. 	The 	great 	weight 	of 	authority 	persuasively
holds 	that 	Sara 	and 	others 	in 	her 	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).
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.
CASE 0:26-cv-00335-DSD-DJF Doc. 7 Filed 01/21/26 Page 2 of 3

3
Here, 	because 	Sara 	has 	lived 	in 	the 	United 	States 	for 	more
than 	thirty 	years, 	her 	detention 	falls 	under § 	1226. 	She 	is
therefore 	subject 	to 	discretionary 	detention 	and 	entitled 	to 	a
bond hearing.
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; and
3. 	Respondents 	are 	enjoined 	from 	removing, 	transferring, 	or
otherwise facilitating the removal of petitioner from the District
of Minnesota before the bond hearing.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: 	January 21, 2026 	/s David S. Doty 	__
David S. Doty, Judge
United Stated District Court
CASE 0:26-cv-00335-DSD-DJF Doc. 7 Filed 01/21/26 Page 3 of 3