Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Mohamednoor A.,
Petitioner,
v.
Pamela Bondi, Attorney General of the
United States; Kristi Noem, Secretary of
Homeland Security; Todd M. Lyons, Acting
Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement; Peter Berg, Field Office
Director, ICE Enforcement and Removal
Operations, St. Paul; U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement; U.S. Department of
Homeland Security; and Samuel J. Olson,
Field Office Director of Enforcement and
Removal Operations, Chicago Field Office,
Immigration and Customs Enforcement, in
his official capacity,
Respondents.
File No. 26-cv-525 (ECT/ECW)
OPINION AND ORDER
Abdiqani Jabane, Jabane Law Office, Minneapolis, MN, and Karen Venice Bryan, KB Law
PLLC, St. Louis Park, MN, for Petitioner Mohamednoor A.
Ana H. Voss, Matthew Isihara, United States Attorney’s Office, Minneapolis, MN, and
Jesus Cruz Rodriguez, United States Attorney’s Office, Lawton, OK, for Respondents
Pamela Bondi, Kristi Noem, Todd M. Lyons, Peter Berg, U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, and Samuel J. Olson.
Petitioner Mohamednoor A. is a Somali citizen who has lived in the United States
since April 2024. 	See Pet. [ECF No. 2] ¶ 2; ECF No. 2-1 at 1.1 	Mohamednoor “was
1 	The uncontested facts, see ECF No. 7 at 1, are drawn from Mohamednoor’s two
habeas petitions under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, one in this case and one in the consolidated action,
CASE 0:26-cv-00525-ECT-ECW Doc. 12 Filed 01/28/26 Page 1 of 8

2
admitted to the United States in refugee status (class of admission ‘RE’).” 	Pet. ¶ 2; see
ECF No. 2-1 at 1. His I-94 Form states that he was admitted on April 25, 2024. ECF No.
2-1 at 1. On May 30, 2025, he filed a Form I-485 application to adjust his status to lawful
permanent resident under the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1159(b). ECF
No. 10-1 at 1; No. 26-cv-564, ECF No. 2 [“Second Pet.”] ¶ 29. 	U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services issued Mohamednoor a Form I-797C receipt notice, ECF No. 10-1
at 1, and scheduled him for biometrics, id. at 2–3 (dated June 24, 2025). That application
remains pending. Second Pet. ¶ 2. There is no record evidence that Mohamednoor has any
criminal convictions. See id. ¶¶ 30–31.
On December 31, 2025, Mohamednoor was detained by U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement (“ICE”). 	Second Pet. ¶¶ 27, 32; Pet. ¶¶ 1, 5; see ECF No. 3-1
(showing ICE detention information for Mohamednoor). 	His second petition alleges he
was never served a warrant for this arrest. Second Pet. ¶ 49. ICE served him with a Notice
to Appear form on January 14, 2026, which states he was admitted to the United States but
is removable because he failed to adjust his status to a lawful permanent resident within
docketed as Mohamednoor v. Noem, 26-cv-564 (ECT/ECW) (D. Minn.). 	He was
represented by different attorneys in the two cases. In the second-filed action, Magistrate
Judge Shannon G. Elkins ordered Mohamednoor to disclose whether he was the petitioner
in the first-filed action. No. 26-cv-564, ECF No. 4 at 2. Mohamednoor responded that he
was. No. 26-cv-564, ECF No. 6 at 2. He requested to proceed on the second-filed action,
and he asked that the first-filed action be dismissed without prejudice. 	Id. 	Respondents
then filed the same response brief in both actions, see 26-cv-564, ECF No. 8; No. 26-cv-
525, ECF No. 7, though that brief is captioned with the title of the first-filed action only.
Mohamednoor did not move to dismiss the first-filed action in that docket, however, and
his attorney filed a reply brief in that case. ECF No. 9; see ECF No. 5 (briefing order). To
untangle this procedural knot, I did not dismiss the first action. 	I consolidated the two
actions. Because the first-filed action was fully briefed and the second-filed one was not,
the first-filed action became the lead case.
CASE 0:26-cv-00525-ECT-ECW Doc. 12 Filed 01/28/26 Page 2 of 8

3
one year of admission. No. 26-cv-564, ECF No. 2-3 at 1. That same day, “an Immigration
Judge terminated removal proceedings in [Mohamednoor’s] case.”2 Pet. ¶ 4; see No. 26-
cv-564, ECF No. 2-4 at 1 (showing immigration judge’s order). 	That order states that
Mohamednoor “is a refugee with an application for adjustment of status pending with the
USCIS,” and he “is not removable or inadmissible.” 	No. 26-cv-564, ECF No. 2-4 at 1.
Mohamednoor nevertheless remains detained. 	Pet. ¶ 5. 	According to ICE’s online
detainee locator, Mohamednoor is detained in the Kandiyohi County Jail. 	See Online
Detainee Locator System, U.S. Immigr. & Customs Enf’t, https://locator.ice.gov/odls/#/
search (last visited Jan. 28, 2026).
Mohamednoor challenges his detention under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Pet. ¶ 1. He claims
he 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. ¶¶ 6–11; see Jose J.O.E. v. Bondi, 797 F. Supp. 3d 957, 961–62
(D. Minn. 	2025) 	(explaining 	legal 	framework). 	According 	to 	Mohamednoor, 	that
misclassification and denial of a bond hearing violate his right to due process under the
Fifth Amendment, 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). 	See Pet. ¶¶ 6–18. 	He seeks issuance of a writ of
habeas corpus ordering Respondents to set a bond hearing for him pursuant to 8 U.S.C.
§ 1226(a), or, alternatively, to release him, a declaration that his current detention violates
the Constitution and laws of the United States, and “other and further relief as the Court
2 	The Petition cites an Exhibit A for support, but that document does not show
termination of removal proceedings. 	See Pet. ¶ 4; ECF No. 2-1 (Mohamednoor’s I-94
Form). The immigration judge’s order was submitted in the second-filed case, No. 26-cv-
564, ECF No. 2-4.
CASE 0:26-cv-00525-ECT-ECW Doc. 12 Filed 01/28/26 Page 3 of 8

4
deems just and proper.” 	Pet. at 4–5. 	His second-filed petition requests additionally that
Respondents be prohibited from transferring him from the District without the Court’s
approval, and it also seeks attorneys’ fees. Second Pet. at 17.
Respondents’ 	argument 	is 	twofold. 	First, 	they 	contend 	that 	Mohamednoor
“provided no evidence, nor has [he] asserted that he held permanent resident status at the
time of his detention,” meaning (in Respondents’ view) that 8 U.S.C. § 1159(a)(1)(C)
applies and requires mandatory detention.3 ECF No. 7 at 2. Section 1159(a)(1) requires
noncitizens admitted under § 1157 who have been physically present in the United States
for one year and who have not acquired permanent resident status to be “returned to the
custody of the Department of Homeland Security for inspection and examination for
admission to the United States as an immigrant in accordance with the provisions of
sections 1225, 1229a, and 1231 of this title.” 8 U.S.C. § 1159(a)(1); see 8 C.F.R. § 209.1
(governing inspection and examination procedures); cf. In re D- K-, 25 I. & N. Dec. 761,
768 (B.I.A. 2012) (“[A] refugee who ultimately becomes a lawful permanent resident will
have been ‘admitted’ twice—first, upon conditional admission under [8 U.S.C. § 1157],
and second, upon reinspection and adjustment to permanent resident status under [8 U.S.C.
§ 1159(a)] . . . .”).
3 	This argument includes citations to paragraphs 27 and 29 of the Petition. ECF No.
7 at 2. 	The petition in the first-filed case lacks those paragraph numbers. 	See Pet. 	It’s
possible that Respondents meant to cite the petition in the second-filed case, but paragraphs
27 and 29 do not support the statements for which they are cited. Contrast ECF No. 7 at
2, with Second Pet. ¶¶ 27, 29. 	The response also mistakenly refers to Mohamednoor as
“Mr. Hassan.” ECF No. 7 at 2.
CASE 0:26-cv-00525-ECT-ECW Doc. 12 Filed 01/28/26 Page 4 of 8

5
Section 1159(a) does not mandate detention of an applicant with a pending
application to adjust status. Instead, it requires certain individuals to enter custody for an
“inspection and examination” to determine whether the applicant is admissible, 8 U.S.C.
§ 1159(a)(1), and applicants found admissible are to be “regarded as lawfully admitted to
the 	United 	States 	for 	permanent 	residence,” 	8 	U.S.C. 	§ 1159(a)(2). 	The 	statute
“contemplates DHS’s ‘custody’ of refugees for the limited purpose of conducting an
inspection necessary to adjudicate the adjustment of status under § 1159(a)(2).” 	Darvin
M. v. Bondi, --- F. Supp. 3d ---, No. 26-cv-437 (SRN/EMB), 2026 WL 184843, at *2
(D. Minn. Jan. 24, 2026). The statute requires custody to “accord[] with the provisions of
sections 1225, 1229a, and 1231” of Title 8 of the U.S. Code. 8 U.S.C. § 1159(a)(1). This
interpretation is supported by multiple courts within this District. 	See Aleksander B. v.
Trump, No. 26-cv-170 (KMM/DJF), 2026 WL 172435, at *4–6 (D. Minn. Jan. 22, 2026);
Jama A.O. v. Bondi, No. 26-cv-420 (DWF/ECW), 2026 WL 185767, at *3–4 (D. Minn.
Jan. 23, 2026); Darvin M., --- F. Supp. 3d ---, 2026 WL 184843, at *2–5; Lah v. Bondi,
No. 26-cv-171 (MJD/SGE), 2026 WL 184529, at *2 (D. Minn. Jan. 23, 2026); Order at 2–
4, Amin A. v. Trump, No. 26-cv-251 (PJS/ECW) (D. Minn. Jan. 26, 2026), ECF No. 10;
Order at 2, Aliaksandr V. v. Bondi, No. 26-cv-513 (DSD/DJF), ECF No. 7. Respondents
cite no cases supporting their interpretation.4
4 	ICE appears to have changed course. In 2010, it understood the statute not to justify
detention or initiation of removal proceedings. See Memorandum on Detention of Refugees
Admitted Under INA § 207 Who Have Failed to Adjust to Lawful Permanent Resident
Status 2, U.S. Immigr. & Customs Enf’t (May 10, 2010), https://www.ice.gov/doclib/foia/
policy/directive11039.1.pdf (“Failure by [refugees] to apply for adjustment of statute under
[§ 1159(a)] is not a sufficient ground to place them in removal proceedings, and therefore
not a proper basis for detaining them.”).
CASE 0:26-cv-00525-ECT-ECW Doc. 12 Filed 01/28/26 Page 5 of 8

6
Because Mohamednoor has shown that his continued detention is not authorized by
§ 1159(a)(1) or the statutes it incorporates—§§ 1225, 1229a, and 1231—his petition will
be granted. 	As explained more fully below, Mohamednoor is not an “applicant for
admission” under 8 U.S.C. § 1225; he was admitted as a refugee in 2024. See Jama A.O.,
2026 WL 185767, at *4. Section 1231 does not apply because no record evidence shows
he has been ordered removed. 	See 8 U.S.C. § 1231 (governing detention of noncitizens
“ordered removed”). 	Section 1229a does not apply because it addresses removal
proceedings, and Mohamednoor has submitted undisputed evidence that his removal
proceedings 	have 	been 	terminated. 	Pet. 	¶ 4; 	No. 	26-cv-564, 	ECF 	No. 	2-4 	at 	1.
Respondents’ argument that Mohamednoor must be detained because his one-year period
to acquire permanent resident status has expired conflicts with the statute’s provision that
refugees are not eligible to apply for adjustment of status until they have “been physically
present in the United States for at least one year.” 8 U.S.C. § 1159(a)(1)(B); see In re D-
K-, 25 I. & N. Dec. at 766 (“Finally, an alien who is ‘admitted’ as a refugee must accrue 1
year of physical presence within the United States from the date he or she entered before
applying for adjustment of status under section 209(a)(1) of the Act.”).
Second, Respondents argue that detention is mandatory under 8 U.S.C. § 1225 (and
thus Mohamednoor is not eligible for a bond hearing). ECF No. 7 at 3–4. Mohamednoor
argues that he is subject instead to § 1226(a), which would entitle him to a bond hearing.
Pet. ¶¶ 6–11. 	Both parties have it wrong—on this record, neither statute justifies
Mohamednoor’s detention. 	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.
CASE 0:26-cv-00525-ECT-ECW Doc. 12 Filed 01/28/26 Page 6 of 8

7
§ 1225(b)(2)(A); Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281, 289 (2018) (construing 8 U.S.C.
§ 1226(a) and (c)); see, e.g., Francisco T. v. Bondi, 797 F. Supp. 3d 970, 974–76 (D. Minn.
2025). 	Mohamednoor was admitted to the United States as a refugee in 2024. 	Pet. ¶ 2;
ECF No. 2-1 at 1. Respondents do not argue the double-admission procedure for refugees
makes Mohamednoor an applicant for admission, see In re D- K-, 25 I. & N. Dec. at 768,
and they do not argue that applying to adjust status counts as applying for admission.
Persuasive authority in this District counsels otherwise. See, e.g., Darvin M., --- F. Supp.
3d ---, 2026 WL 184843, at *3. 	Neither is Mohamednoor properly detained under
§ 1226(a). 	That statute authorizes detention “[o]n a warrant issued by the Attorney
General.” 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). Mohamednoor alleges he was not served a warrant, Second
Pet. ¶ 49, and Respondents submitted no evidence that he was.5
ORDER
Therefore, based on the foregoing, and on all the files, records, and proceedings
herein, IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. 	Petitioner’s 	Emergency 	Motion 	for 	Temporary 	Restraining 	Order 	and
Preliminary Injunction [ECF No. 3] is GRANTED as set forth in the Briefing Order [ECF
No. 5].
5 	Mohamednoor filed an emergency motion for a temporary restraining order, seeking
to prohibit Respondents from transferring him outside the District of Minnesota while his
habeas petition is pending. ECF No. 3 at 4–5. That request was effectively granted in the
January 21 briefing order, though no order was issued on the motion. ECF No. 5 at 2. As
a housekeeping matter, the motion for temporary restraining order will be granted.
CASE 0:26-cv-00525-ECT-ECW Doc. 12 Filed 01/28/26 Page 7 of 8

8
2. 	Petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus [ECF No. 2] is GRANTED.
Respondents shall, within seven days of this Order, either:
a. 	Complete inspection and examination of Petitioner Mohamednoor A.
pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1159(a), and file a notice confirming that inspection has been
completed, identifying the outcome, and stating whether Respondents contend that
continued detention is authorized on a specific lawful basis; or
b. 	Immediately release Petitioner from custody in Minnesota, and file a
notice confirming the date, time, and location of release.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: January 28, 2026 	s/ Eric C. Tostrud
Eric C. Tostrud
United States District Court
CASE 0:26-cv-00525-ECT-ECW Doc. 12 Filed 01/28/26 Page 8 of 8