Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Camerino M.,
Petitioner,
v.
Kristi Noem, Secretary, U.S. Department
of Homeland Security; David Easterwood,
Acting Director of Enforcement and
Removal Operations, St. Paul Field
Office, Immigration and Customs
Enforcement; Todd M. Lyons, Acting
Director of Immigration and Customs
Enforcement, Immigration and Customs
Enforcement; Pamela Bondi, U.S.
Attorney General; Executive Office for
Immigration Review; and Warden, ERO
ICE Detention, Ft. Snelling, Minnesota,
Respondents.
Civ. No. 26-668 (PAM/LIB)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Camerino M.’s Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus. (“Pet.” (Docket No. 1).) For the following reasons, the Court denies the
petition.
BACKGROUND
Petitioner Camerino M. is a citizen of Mexico. 	(Id. ¶ 22.) 	He entered the United
States on February 7, 2019, through a port of entry in San Yisidro, California. (Id. Ex. 2
at 2.) 	He sought asylum at the border and was detained. 	The Department of Homeland
Security determined that Petitioner was an arriving alien who was presumably inadmissible
CASE 0:26-cv-00668-PAM-LIB Doc. 17 Filed 03/03/26 Page 1 of 5

2
because he did not possess “a valid unexpired immigrant visa, reentry permit, border
crossing card, or other valid entry document required by the Immigration and Nationality
Act.” (Id. Ex. 2 at 1.) 	Petitioner was released on February 11, 2019, after United States
Border Patrol issued him a notice to appear in immigration court. (Id.) Petitioner applied
for asylum. (Id. ¶ 5; Docket No. 14 ¶ 4.) 	On June 18, 2025, his application was denied,
and he was ordered removed to Mexico. 	(Docket No. 13-3 at 1.) 	Petitioner’s appeal of
that decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals remains pending. (Pet. ¶ 5, Ex. 1.)
On January 26, 2026, Respondents detained Petitioner, and he remains in ICE
custody. (Id. ¶¶ 6, 34.)
DISCUSSION
Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, asking
the Court to order his immediate release or grant him an individualized bond hearing under
8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). Respondents contend that his detention is mandatory pending removal
proceedings under § 1225(b)(1). The Court must therefore decide whether § 1225(b)(1) or
§ 1226(a) governs Petitioner’s detention.
“When interpreting a statute, [courts] begin with the statute’s plain language, giving
words the meaning that proper grammar and usage would assign them. 	If the intent of
Congress can be clearly discerned from the statute’s language, the judicial inquiry must
end.” 	United 	States 	v. 	Lester, 	92 	F.4th 	740, 	742 	(8th 	Cir. 	2024) (cleaned 	up).
Section 1225(a)(1) dictates that “[a]n alien present in the United States who has not been
admitted or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of
arrival . . .) shall be deemed for purposes of this chapter an applicant for admission.” The
CASE 0:26-cv-00668-PAM-LIB Doc. 17 Filed 03/03/26 Page 2 of 5

3
Supreme Court of the United States has determined that “[a]n alien who tries to enter the
country illegally is treated as an applicant for admission, and an alien who is detained
shortly after unlawful entry cannot be said to have effected an entry.” Dep’t of Homeland
Sec. v. Thuraissigiam, 591 U.S. 103, 140 (2020) (internal citation and quotations omitted).
Section 1225(b)(1)(A)(i) dictates that arriving aliens and other aliens initially
determined by an immigration officer to be inadmissible due to fraud, misrepresentation,
or lack of valid documentation are to be ordered “removed from the United States without
further hearing or review unless the alien indicates either an intention to apply for
asylum . . . or a fear of persecution.” Aliens claiming such fear or seeking asylum “shall
be detained pending a final determination of credible fear of persecution and, if found not
to have such a fear, until removed.” 	8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1)(B)(iii)(IV). 	“Read most
naturally, §§ 1225(b)(1) and (b)(2) mandate detention of applicants for admission until
certain proceedings have concluded.” 	Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281, 297 (2018).
“And 	neither § 	1225(b)(1) 	nor 	§ 1225(b)(2) 	says 	anything 	whatsoever 	about 	bond
hearings.” Id.
There is no dispute that Petitioner is an alien present in the United States. The record
is clear that Petitioner was detained upon his entry into California and processed for
removal as an arriving alien. Although Petitioner was released on parole, the law dictates
that “[a]n arriving alien remains an arriving alien even if paroled pursuant to section
212(d)(5) of the [Immigration and Nationality] Act, and even after any such parole is
terminated or revoked.” 	8 U.S.C. § 1.2. 	Petitioner provides no facts demonstrating that
anything has altered the initial determination made by the Department of Homeland
CASE 0:26-cv-00668-PAM-LIB Doc. 17 Filed 03/03/26 Page 3 of 5

4
Security that he is an inadmissible alien. Although Petitioner disagrees that he is subject
to detention under § 1225(b)(1), he fails to substantively respond to Respondents’
argument or provide 	any authority to support his position on the applicability of
§ 1225(b)(1).
Petitioner’s application for asylum does not change the Court’s conclusion. 	Even
“[i]f actively ‘seeking admission’ is a distinct requirement for mandatory detention
pursuant to § 1225, seeking asylum is ‘seeking admission,’ within the meaning of the
statute, since ‘admission’ is defined in terms of ‘lawful’ status, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(13)(A),
not physical presence on U.S. soil.” Chen v. Almodovar, No. 1:25-CV-8350-MKV, 2025
WL 3484855, *6 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 4, 2025).
Finally, Petitioner contends that his arrest was unlawful because Respondents did
not have a warrant, but “Section 1225(b) does not include a warrant or an arrest
requirement.” 	Ramirez Melgar v. Bondi, No. 8:25CV555, 2025 WL 3496721, at *8 (D.
Neb. Dec. 5, 2025).
The statute’s plain meaning prevails. 	Respondents may lawfully detain Petitioner
under § 1225(b)(1), and he is not entitled to a bond hearing.
CASE 0:26-cv-00668-PAM-LIB Doc. 17 Filed 03/03/26 Page 4 of 5

5
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. 	The Petition (Docket No. 1) is DENIED; and
2. 	This action is DISMISSED without prejudice.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: February 25, 2026 	s/ Paul A. Magnuson
Paul A. Magnuson
United States District Court Judge
CASE 0:26-cv-00668-PAM-LIB Doc. 17 Filed 03/03/26 Page 5 of 5