Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Jose L.M.S.,
Petitioner,
v.
Pamela Bondi, in her official capacity as
Attorney General of the United States;
Kristi Noem, in her official capacity as
Secretary of the U.S. Department of
Homeland Security; Todd M. Lyons, in his
official capacity as Acting Director of
Immigration and Customs Enforcement;
and David Easterwood, in his official
capacity as Acting Director, St. Paul Field
Office, Immigration and Customs
Enforcement,
Respondents.
Civil No. 26-474 (DWF/LIB)
MEMORANDUM
OPINION AND ORDER
INTRODUCTION
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Jose L.M.S.’s petition for a writ of
habeas corpus alleging that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution and laws of
the United States (the “Petition”). (Doc. No. 1.) Respondents oppose. (Doc. No. 5.) For
the reasons set forth below, the Court grants the Petition and orders Respondents to
immediately release Petitioner.
BACKGROUND
Petitioner is a twenty-year-old citizen of Ecuador who entered the United States
without inspection as a juvenile on or about May 17, 2024, seeking asylum and
CASE 0:26-cv-00474-DWF-LIB Doc. 8 Filed 01/25/26 Page 1 of 7

protection. (Doc. No. 1 ¶¶ 1, 17.) Upon arrival, Petitioner was detained within the
interior of the United States by Respondents, who released him on his own recognizance.
(Id. ¶ 1.) When Petitioner was released, it was determined that he was neither a flight
risk nor a danger to the community, and he was instructed to appear at regular
appointments with the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”). (Id. ¶ 2.) Petitioner
adhered to that schedule. (Id.) After Petitioner’s release from DHS custody, he was
issued a Notice to Appear and placed in full removal proceedings on June 20, 2024. (Id.
¶ 3.)
On April 2, 2025, a district judge in Hennepin County determined that Petitioner
qualifies as an at-risk juvenile under Minn. Stat. § 257D.01, subd. 4 based on abuse,
abandonment, and neglect by his parents, and that it was not in his best interests to return
to Ecuador. (Id. ¶¶ 4, 33.) The Hennepin County district judge established Petitioner’s
brother as his legal guardian under § 257D until Petitioner’s twenty-first birthday on
September 30, 2026. (Id. ¶ 33.)
On May 13, 2025, Petitioner filed a Form I-589 Application for Asylum and for
Withholding of Removal. (Id. ¶¶ 1, 6, 34.) He has not yet been scheduled for a final
hearing on his asylum application. (Id. ¶ 34.) Petitioner also filed a Form I-360 for
Special Immigrant Juvenile Status (“SIJS”), which was approved on September 23, 2025.
(Id. ¶¶ 5, 33.)1
1 	The purpose of SIJS is to confer on vulnerable young people the right to seek
lawful permanent resident (“LPR”) status, while remaining in the United States through
the process of adjustment of status. See 8 U.S.C. § 1255(h).
CASE 0:26-cv-00474-DWF-LIB Doc. 8 Filed 01/25/26 Page 2 of 7

Petitioner has no criminal history. (Id. ¶ 36.) Petitioner also asserts that he has
built ties to stay in the United States, attended all of his immigration court and ICE
appointments, and now has a path to lawful permanent residence through his approved
petition for SIJS. (Id. ¶ 2.) Specifically, Petitioner will be eligible to file an application
for adjustment of status to permanent residence once his priority date of April 22, 2025,
becomes current. (Id. ¶ 35.)
On January 20, 2026, while appearing for a scheduled appointment with DHS,
Petitioner was detained. (Id. ¶¶ 2, 37.) He is currently being detained in Fort Snelling,
Minnesota. (Id. ¶¶ 13, 37.) Respondents claim authority to detain him under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1225(b)(2)(A). (Id. ¶¶ 1, 38; see also Doc. No. 5.)
Petitioner filed the Petition on January 20, 2026. (Doc. No. 1 at 25.) Petitioner
asserts that his detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) is patently unlawful because it
violates due process, the Administrative Procedures Act, and the Immigration and
Nationality Act (“INA”). (Id. ¶ 61.) Petitioner requests release from detention or an
order requiring Respondents to provide him with a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226
within seven days, and fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act. (Id. at 25.)
On January 20, 2026, the Court ordered Respondents to answer the Petition on or before
January 23, 2026, at 12:00 p.m. CT, and enjoined Respondents from moving Petitioner
from this District pending further order. (Doc. No. 3.) The Court granted an extension
giving Respondents until 5:00 p.m. CT (Doc. No. 6) and Respondents timely filed a
response, arguing that Petitioner is subject to mandatory under 8 U.S.C. § 1225. (Doc.
No. 5.)
CASE 0:26-cv-00474-DWF-LIB Doc. 8 Filed 01/25/26 Page 3 of 7

DISCUSSION
I. 	Legal Standard
A district court may provide habeas relief to a person who is being detained in
violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). That
authority includes jurisdiction to hear habeas challenges to immigration-related detention.
Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 687 (2001); Deng Chol A. v. Barr, 455 F. Supp. 3d 896,
900-01 (D. Minn. 2020). The burden is on the petitioner to prove illegal detention by a
preponderance of the evidence. See Mohammed H. v. Trump, 786 F. Supp. 3d 1149,
1154 (D. Minn. 2025).
II. 	Analysis
A. 	Detention
Within federal immigration law, two statutes govern the detention of noncitizens
pending removal proceedings—8 U.S.C. §§ 1225 and 1226. Section 1225 applies to
“applicants for admission”—noncitizens who are either “present in the United States who
ha[ve] not been admitted” or who “arrive[] in the United States.” 8 U.S.C. § 1225(a)(1).
Under that section, “if the examining immigration officer determines that [a noncitizen]
seeking admission is not clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted,” the
noncitizen must be detained during the pendency of their removal proceedings. Id.
§ 1225(b)(2)(A). Section 1226 applies where § 1225 is inapplicable and provides
immigration judges with the discretion to grant release on bond to noncitizens subject to
removal proceedings. See id. § 1226(a).
CASE 0:26-cv-00474-DWF-LIB Doc. 8 Filed 01/25/26 Page 4 of 7

Respondents argue that Petitioner is an “applicant for admission” because he was
never lawfully admitted to the United States and is therefore still “seeking admission.”
As the Court explained in Victor S.M. v. Noem, the plain language of the statute dictates
otherwise. No. 26-cv-400, 2026 WL 161445, at *2 (D. Minn. Jan. 21, 2026). Petitioner
has been in the United States for roughly a year and eight months—he is not “arriving,”
he is already here. See Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281, 289 (2018) (noting that
§ 1226(a) applies to “certain aliens already in the country”); Ahmed M. v. Bondi,
No. 25-cv-4711, 2026 WL 25627, at *2 (D. Minn. Jan. 5, 2026) (finding that § 1226(a)
applied to a noncitizen who had been in the country for less than two years). Petitioner is
therefore subject to the discretionary bond provisions of § 1226(a), not the mandatory
bond provisions of § 1225(b)(2).
In their response, Respondents acknowledge that their arguments in support of
deeming detention under these circumstances as mandatory under § 1225 are before the
Eighth Circuit in Avila v. Bondi, No. 25-3248. The Court has already considered the
Avila appeal and found the arguments unpersuasive. Victor S.M., 2026 WL 161445,
at *2; Omar E.F.G. v. Bondi, No. 26-cv-451, 2026 WL 184571, at *2 (D. Minn. Jan. 23,
2026). In addition, Respondents submit additional authority that they claim supports
their interpretation of § 1225. (Doc. No. 5 at 3-7.) Specifically, Respondents cite
primarily to cases outside of this Circuit, or, if in this Circuit, outside of the District of
Minnesota. In addition, Respondents cite to cases in this District that adopt a minority
view. (Id.) The Court respectfully disagrees with the decisions in those cases and
CASE 0:26-cv-00474-DWF-LIB Doc. 8 Filed 01/25/26 Page 5 of 7

continues to find that § 1226 applies to Petitioner as a noncitizen already present in the
country.
B. 	Remedy
Having found that Petitioner is being detained unlawfully, the question becomes
the correct remedy. A detainee being held pursuant to § 1226(a), as Petitioner is here,
must have been served an arrest warrant prior to detainment. 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a); see also
Ahmed M., 2026 WL 25627, at *3 (collecting cases). There is no evidence that
Respondents had a warrant to arrest Petitioner. And after being given the opportunity to
explain the true cause of Petitioner’s detainment and provide documents of such (see
Doc. No. 3), Respondents did not do so. (See Doc. No. 5 (addressing only the legality of
Petitioner’s continued confinement, not the legality of his arrest).) The Court therefore
concludes that Petitioner was arrested without a warrant. The remedy for a warrantless
arrest is immediate release. Munaf v. Geren, 553 U.S. 674, 693 (2008) (“Habeas is at its
core a remedy for unlawful executive detention. The typical remedy for such detention
is, of course, release.” (citation omitted)).
ORDER
Based upon the foregoing and the record in this case, IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED that:
1. 	Petitioner’s writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. [1]) is GRANTED.
a. 	The Court DECLARES that 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(a).
CASE 0:26-cv-00474-DWF-LIB Doc. 8 Filed 01/25/26 Page 6 of 7

b. 	Respondents are ORDERED to immediately release Petitioner from
detention.
c. 	Within three (3) days of the date of this Order, Respondents shall
provide the Court with a status update concerning Petitioner’s release.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: January 25, 2026 	s/Donovan W. Frank
DONOVAN W. FRANK
United States District Judge
CASE 0:26-cv-00474-DWF-LIB Doc. 8 Filed 01/25/26 Page 7 of 7