Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Cristhian B.Y., 	Case No. 26-cv-745 (MJD/DTS)
Petitioner,
v. 	REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Pamela Bondi, et al.,
Respondents.
INTRODUCTION
Petitioner Cristhian B.V. is an Ecuadorian citizen who has resided in the United
States since 2022. Pet. ¶¶ 26–27, Dkt. No. 1. Cristhian B.V. was apprehended at the time
of entry and released on an order of supervision. Id. ¶ 28–29. The Government detained
him on January 27, 2026, and he remains in immigration detention at this time. Id. ¶ 34.
Cristhian B.V. challenges his detention under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Id. at 3. He claims
that the Government has unlawfully detained him pursuant to § 1225(b)(2) (a mandatory
detention statute) rather than § 1226 (a discretionary detention statute). Id. ¶¶ 35–78.
Immigrants detained under § 1226 are entitled to a bond hearing. See, e.g., Jose J.O.E.
v. Bondi, 797 F. Supp. 3d 957, 961–62 (D. Minn. 2025) (explaining the legal framework).
Cristhian B.V. contends the Government’s misclassification of him as a § 1225(b)(2)
detainee violates the Immigration and Nationality Act, id. ¶¶ 79–91, his right to due
process under the Fifth Amendment, id. ¶¶ 96–99, and federal regulations, id. ¶¶ 100–
05. He also claims that his arrest violated the Fourth Amendment. Id. ¶¶ 106–18. He
seeks a writ of habeas corpus requiring the Government to immediately release him or
provide a bond hearing under § 1226(a) within seven days. Id. at 30 (prayer for relief).
CASE 0:26-cv-00745-MJD-DTS Doc. 7 Filed 02/02/26 Page 1 of 3

2
The Government disagrees, arguing that § 1225(b)(2), not § 1226, governs
Cristhian B.V.’s detention. Gov.’s Resp. 1, Dkt. No. 5. This raises an issue of statutory
interpretation that this Court and others in this District have repeatedly considered and
rejected. Francisco T. v. Bondi, No. 25-cv-3219, 2025 WL 3490809, at *3–11 (D. Minn.
Sept. 5, 2025) R. & R. adopted by 2025 WL 3236513 (D. Minn. Nov. 19, 2025); see also,
e.g., Misael T. v. Bondi, No. 26-cv-263, 2026 WL 146510, at *2 (D. Minn. Jan. 20, 2026)
(collecting cases); Andres R.E. v. Bondi, No. 25-cv-3946, 2025 WL 3146312, at *2–3
(D. Minn. Nov. 4, 2025). The Government concedes as much, acknowledging that “[t]his
petition raises legal and factual issues similar to those in prior habeas petitions this Court
has decided.” Gov.’s Resp. 1. Rather than restating its analysis here, the Court
incorporates its prior analysis by reference. See Francisco T., 2025 WL 3490809, at *3–
11, R. & R. adopted by 2025 WL 3236513. Because § 1226(a)’s discretionary detention
framework, not § 1225’s mandatory detention framework, applies to Cristhian B.V., the
Court recommends granting the petition.1
RECOMMENDATION
For the reasons set forth above, the Court RECOMMENDS THAT:
1. 	Cristhian 	B.V.’s 	Petition 	for Writ 	of Habeas 	Corpus (Dkt. 	No. 1) 	be
GRANTED;
2. 	The Government be ordered to issue an administrative warrant and provide
Cristhian B.V. with a bond hearing pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226 within seven days;
1 Resolving this question in Cristhian B.V.’s favor makes it unnecessary to address the
Petition’s alternative grounds.
CASE 0:26-cv-00745-MJD-DTS Doc. 7 Filed 02/02/26 Page 2 of 3

3
3. 	The Government be ordered to release Cristhian B.V. if it fails to issue an
administrative warrant and provide Cristhian B.V. with a bond hearing;
4. 	The Government be enjoined from denying Cristhian B.V. a bond hearing
on the basis that § 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) applies to him; and
5. 	The Government be ordered to report to the Court within seven days the
results of the bond hearing and/or whether Cristhian B.V. has been released.
Dated: February 2, 2026 	__s/ David T. Schultz____________
DAVID T. SCHULTZ
United States Magistrate Judge
NOTICE
Filing Objections: This Report and Recommendation is not an order or judgment of the
District Court. It is not appealable directly to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Under the circumstances of this case and Local Rule 72.2(b)(1), the parties may file and
serve specific written objections to this magistrate judge’s proposed findings and
recommendations within 2 days of the filing of the Report and Recommendation. A party
may respond to those objections within 2 days after being served a copy of the objections
without regard to weekends or holidays. See Local Rule 72.2(b)(2). All objections and
responses must comply with the word or line limits set forth in Local Rule 72.2(c).
CASE 0:26-cv-00745-MJD-DTS Doc. 7 Filed 02/02/26 Page 3 of 3