Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Juan U. and L.E.,
Petitioners,
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; 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.
File No. 26-cv-642 (ECT/DLM)
OPINION AND ORDER
David L. Wilson and Gabriela Sophia Anderson, Wilson Law Group, Minneapolis, MN,
for Petitioners Juan U. and L.E.
Ana H. Voss and Matthew Isihara, United States Attorney’s Office, Minneapolis, MN, for
Respondents Pamela Bondi, Kristi Noem, Department of Homeland Security, Todd M.
Lyons, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Daren K. Margolin, Executive Office for
Immigration Review, and David Easterwood.
Petitioners Juan U. and L.E., a father and daughter, are Ecuadorian citizens who
entered the United States on or about January 8, 2023. 	Pet. [ECF No. 1] ¶¶ 21, 37–39.
“Respondents encountered [Juan and L.E.], processed them, and released them” under
Orders of Release on Recognizance, subject to certain conditions. 	Id. ¶ 40; see ECF
CASE 0:26-cv-00642-ECT-DLM Doc. 8 Filed 01/30/26 Page 1 of 7

2
Nos. 3-1, 3-2. “Respondents commenced removal proceedings under 8 U.S.C. § 1229a.”
Pet. ¶ 41. 	Juan and L.E. “have been compliant with all conditions of their release,” and
they “have not committed an offense that might invoke 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) concerns.”
Id. ¶¶ 44–45; see also id. ¶ 114 (“Petitioners were compliant with their Orders for Release
on Recognizance.”). 	“On or about January 25, 2026, Respondents detained [Juan and
L.E.]” without an arrest warrant. Id. ¶¶ 43, 76, 113. On January 25, 2026 when the Petition
was filed, Juan and L.E. were “in ICE custody somewhere in Minnesota.” 	Id. ¶ 46; see
also id. ¶ 10 (stating that “Petitioners are detained in this District”). Pursuant to this Court’s
January 26, 2026 Order, Respondents were “ENJOINED from moving [Juan and L.E.]
from the District of Minnesota during the pendency of this Petition.” 	ECF No. 4 at 2.
Though the timeline of their movement is unclear, Respondents moved Juan and L.E. to El
Paso, Texas, where they are detained. See ECF No. 7 at 2.
Juan and L.E. challenge their detention under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 	Pet. ¶ 6. 	They
claim they have been wrongly classified as § 1225(b)(2) detainees (who are subject to
mandatory detention) rather than § 1226(a) detainees (whose detention is discretionary and
who are entitled to bond hearings). Pet. ¶¶ 47–66; see Jose J.O.E. v. Bondi, 797 F. Supp.
3d 957, 961–62 (D. Minn. 2025) (explaining legal framework). 	According to Juan and
L.E., that misclassification and denial of a bond hearing violate their rights under the Fifth
Amendment, the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), and the Immigration and
Nationality Act (“INA”) and its implementing regulations. See Pet. ¶¶ 81–107. In addition,
Juan and L.E. assert that their warrantless arrest violates their Fourth Amendment rights.
Id. ¶¶ 108–17. They seek a declaration that they are not subject to detention under 8 U.S.C.
CASE 0:26-cv-00642-ECT-DLM Doc. 8 Filed 01/30/26 Page 2 of 7

3
§ 1225(b)(2), but instead detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a)(1); a declaration that they
are eligible for release; a declaration that 8 U.S. C. § 1226 controls their detention, and that
the Executive Office for Immigration Review has the legal authority to conduct a bond
redetermination hearing; a declaration that Respondents acted arbitrarily and capriciously,
failed to adhere to regulations, and adopted a new policy without undergoing the required
notice and comment in violation of the APA; issuance of an order for their immediate
release pursuant to their Orders of Release on Recognizance because they were not
detained with an arrest warrant, or alternatively, issuance of an order directing Respondents
to conduct a bond hearing; and “all further relief this Court deems just and proper.”
Pet. ¶¶ 78–80 & at 29–30. In addition, because Juan and L.E. were moved notwithstanding
this Court’s January 26, 2026 Order enjoining their movement outside of Minnesota, Juan
and L.E. request that they be returned “to Minnesota together and released together, as
father and daughter.” ECF No. 7; see ECF No. 4 at 2.
In their brief response, Respondents acknowledge that the “petition raises legal and
factual issues similar to those in prior habeas petitions this Court has decided,” and argue
that Juan and L.E.’s Petition fails on the merits for the same reasons set forth in the appeal
of Avila v. Bondi, No. 25-cv-3741 (JRT/SGE), 2025 WL 2976539 (D. Minn. Oct. 21,
2025), appeal docketed, No. 25-3248 (8th Cir. Nov. 10, 2025). See ECF No. 6 at 1. This
raises an issue of statutory interpretation1 that courts in this District have repeatedly
considered and rejected, and it will be rejected here as well.
1 	To the extent Respondents challenge this Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction to
consider Juan and L.E.’s Petition, consistent with previous rulings on this issue, I find that
the jurisdiction-stripping provisions of § 1252(a)(5), (b)(9), and (g) do not apply to “the
CASE 0:26-cv-00642-ECT-DLM Doc. 8 Filed 01/30/26 Page 3 of 7

4
Juan and L.E. have shown they have been misclassified under § 1225(b)(2) rather
than § 1226. 	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. § 1225(b)(2)(A);
Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281, 289 (2018) (construing 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and (c));
see 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); Andres R.E. v. Bondi, No. 25-cv-3946 (NEB/DLM), 2025
WL 3146312, at *2–3 (D. Minn. Nov. 4, 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). As of this writing,
only one federal court of appeals has ruled on the question, and it reached the same
conclusion. See Castañon-Nava v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 161 F.4th 1048, (7th Cir.
2025). 	Juan and L.E. have lived in the United States for more than two years. 	See Pet.
¶ 39. Their detention falls under § 1226(a) and not § 1225(b)(2).2
narrow question whether a noncitizen is subject to discretionary detention under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1226 or mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2).” Fernando F.P.D. v. Brott, No. 25-cv-
4455 (ECT/ECW), 2025 WL 3675151, at *2 (D. Minn. Dec. 17, 2025) (citing cases).
2 	Respondents do not argue that Juan and L.E. are subject to mandatory detention
pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c), or that any other statutory scheme other than that raised in
the Petition would apply to their detention. See ECF No. 6.
CASE 0:26-cv-00642-ECT-DLM Doc. 8 Filed 01/30/26 Page 4 of 7

5
The final issue is the appropriate remedy. 	Section 1226 provides that “[o]n a
warrant issued by the Attorney General, an alien may be arrested and detained.”
8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) (emphasis added). 	“Issuance of a warrant is a necessary condition to
justify 	discretionary 	detention 	under 	section 	1226(a).” 	Chogllo 	Chafla 	v.
Scott, --- F. Supp. 3d ---, No. 2:25-cv-00437, 2025 WL 2688541, at *11 (D. Me. Sep. 21,
2025), appeal filed (Nov. 7, 2025). 	“[I]t follows that absent a warrant a noncitizen may
not be arrested and detained under section 1226(a).” 	Id. (emphasis in original); accord
Chiliquinga Yumbillo v. Stamper, No. 2:25-cv-00479, 2025 WL 2783642, at *5 (D. Me.
Sep. 30, 2025); J.A.C.P. v. Wofford, No. 1:25-cv-01354, 2025 WL 3013328, at *8 (E.D.
Cal. Oct. 27, 2025); see also Florida v. United States, 660 F. Supp. 3d 1239, 1276 (N.D.
Fla. 2023) (stating § 1226 “is not even triggered unless an arrest warrant is issued” and that
“[i]f [an] alien has not been arrested on a warrant, then the subsequent provisions giving
the Attorney General discretion to detain or release ‘the arrested alien’ are likewise not
triggered”), appeal dismissed, 2023 WL 5212561 (11th Cir. July 11, 2023). 	Here, Juan
and L.E. allege that they were arrested without a warrant. 	Pet. ¶¶ 76, 113. 	And
Respondents were ordered to include in their answer “[w]hether the absence of a warrant
preceding [Juan and L.E.’s] arrest necessitates [Juan and L.E.’s] immediate release.” See
ECF No. 4 at 2. 	Respondents have not produced a warrant, nor have they advanced any
specific argument that Juan and L.E.’s release is an unwarranted remedy. See ECF No. 6.
“[R]elease is an available and appropriate remedy” for “detention that lacks a lawful
predicate.” 	Order on Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus at 6, Vedat C. v. Bondi, No.
25-cv-4642 (JWB/DTS) (D. Minn. Dec. 19, 2025), ECF No. 9 (citing Munaf v. Geren,
CASE 0:26-cv-00642-ECT-DLM Doc. 8 Filed 01/30/26 Page 5 of 7

6
553 U.S. 674, 693 (2008)). 	“Where the record shows Respondents have not identified a
valid statutory basis for detention in the first place, the remedy is not to supply one through
further proceedings.” 	Id.; see Chogllo Chafla, --- F. Supp. 3d ---, 2025 WL 2688541, at
*11 (“Since the Government did not comply with the plain language of section 1226(a),
[petitioners’] immediate release is justified.”); J.A.C.P., 2025 WL 3013328, at *8 (same);
Chiliquinga Yumbillo, 2025 WL 2783642, at *5 (reaching same conclusion); see also
Munaf, 553 U.S. at 693 (“Habeas is at its core a remedy for unlawful executive detention.
The typical remedy for such detention is, of course, release.” (citation modified)).3
ORDER
Therefore, based on the foregoing, and on all the files, records, and proceedings
herein, IT IS ORDERED THAT Petitioner Juan U.’s and L.E.’s Verified Petition for Writ
of Habeas Corpus [ECF No. 1] is GRANTED as follows:
1. 	The Court DECLARES that Petitioners are not subject to mandatory
detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2), and are instead subject to detention, if at all,
pursuant to the discretionary provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a).
3 	The resolution of this statutory-interpretation question in Juan and L.E.’s favor
makes it unnecessary to address the Petition’s remaining grounds.
CASE 0:26-cv-00642-ECT-DLM Doc. 8 Filed 01/30/26 Page 6 of 7

7
2. 	Respondents shall return Petitioners to Minnesota together as soon as
practicable, but not later than 72 hours after entry of this Order. 	Respondents shall then
release Petitioners from custody together, subject to their existing Orders of Release on
Recognizance.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: January 30, 2026, at 12:50 p.m. 	s/ Eric C. Tostrud
Eric C. Tostrud
United States District Court
CASE 0:26-cv-00642-ECT-DLM Doc. 8 Filed 01/30/26 Page 7 of 7