Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Jose R.V.,
Petitioner,
v.
Ryan Shea, et al.,
Respondents.
No. 26-cv-956 (KMM/EMB)
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by
Petitioner Jose R.V. (Dkt. 1.) For the reasons that follow, the Petition is granted.
BACKGROUND
Jose R.V. is a citizen of El Salvador and is 19 years old. (Id. ¶ 22.) He came to the
United States in 2024 as an unaccompanied child. (Id. ¶ 23.) Jose R.V. works a job in
construction and plays in a soccer league. (Id. ¶ 29.) He has no criminal history and no
prior arrests. (Id. ¶¶ 1, 30.) He also has a pending application for asylum. (Id. ¶ 5.) On
Christmas Eve, December 24, 2025, Jose R.V. was arrested while riding as a passenger in
a friend’s car between construction sites. (Id. ¶ 30.) The officers did not have a warrant for
Jose R.V.’s arrest and did not accuse the vehicle of violating any traffic laws. (Id.) As of
the Petition’s filing on February 2, 2026, Jose R.V. has been held in the Freeborn Adult
Detention Center for nearly six weeks. (Id.)
Respondents’ position appears to be that Petitioner is subject to mandatory detention
pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). (Dkt. 6.) They do not point to any other basis for his
CASE 0:26-cv-00956-KMM-EMB Doc. 7 Filed 02/04/26 Page 1 of 4

2
detention or suggest that he has criminal history triggering other mandatory detention
provisions.
DISCUSSION
This case is one of many filed in recent months in this district challenging the
application of § 1225(b)(2) to aliens who are already in the United States, either having
entered without inspection or having been previously released pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226
or another statute. This Court has previously held that, because such people are not
“seeking admission,” as set forth in § 1225(b)(2), that provision—which mandates
detention—does not apply to them. See, e.g., Belsai D.S. v. Bondi, No. 25-cv-03682
(KMM/EMB), 2025 WL 2802947 (D. Minn. Oct. 1, 2025). The same legal conclusion has
been adopted by countless district courts around the country in similar cases, by the only
Court of Appeals to have decided the issue, and by many courts in this district. The
Respondents’ position is that Belsai D.S. and the many other cases reaching the same
conclusion were wrongly decided. The government points out, correctly, that other courts
have ruled differently and that the issue is currently pending before the Eighth Circuit, and
asks this Court to reconsider its previous decision.
Although the Court has considered the arguments raised by the government, and
reviewed the authority cited, the Court declines to repudiate its analysis from Belsai D.S.
and instead continues to follow the analysis of the strong majority of courts to have
considered the matter. Of course, these issues are complex, and the government’s
arguments are not frivolous. But the Court continues to believe that the better reading of
the relevant statutory scheme is that § 1225(b)(2) does not apply to Jose R.V. or others who
CASE 0:26-cv-00956-KMM-EMB Doc. 7 Filed 02/04/26 Page 2 of 4

3
are similarly situated, and his mandatory detention under that provision is not supported by
the law.
The Court also notes that Jose R.V.’s pending asylum petition does not alter the
Court’s conclusion that detention under § 1225(b)(2) is not appropriate. As U.S. District
Court Judge Eric Tostrud recently noted in Ahmed M. v. Bondi et. Al, No. 25-cv-4711
(ECT/SGE), 2026 WL 25627, at *2 (D. Minn. Jan. 5, 2026) that “several courts have
determined that asylum applications filed in like circumstances do not change the
outcome.” Id. (collecting cases). The reasoning in Judge Tostrud’s opinion, and those of
the cases he references, is sound, and the Court declines to find that Jose R.V.’s application
for asylum triggers mandatory detention under § 1225(b).
Jose R.V. alleges that he should be immediately released or, at minimum, granted a
bond hearing. The Court concludes that immediate release is appropriate in this case. The
government has not claimed to have a “warrant issued by the Attorney General” supporting
his recent arrest, nor has the government produced one to the Court. As Judge Tostrud also
explained, “[s]ection 1226 provides that ‘[o]n a warrant issued by the Attorney General,
an alien may be arrested and detained.’” Id. Judge Tostrud concluded that the issuance of
a warrant is a necessary prerequisite to even discretionary detention under § 1226(a), citing
several decisions from other districts. Id. In Ahmed M., like here, the petitioner had been
rearrested with no warrant, and there were no allegations of a violation of the conditions of
his previous release. Therefore, the appropriate remedy in Ahmed M. was immediate
release rather than a detention hearing. See also Juan S.R. v. Bondi, 26-cv-05 (PJS/LIB)
(Order, Dkt. 8, Jan. 12, 2026) (same). And although Ahmed M. was specifically cited in
CASE 0:26-cv-00956-KMM-EMB Doc. 7 Filed 02/04/26 Page 3 of 4

4
Jose R.V.’s Verified Petition, Respondents do not grapple with this argument for immediate
release rather than a bond hearing. Similarly, because the Court here has before it neither
the administrative warrant contemplated by § 1226, nor a suggestion that Jose R.V. has
done something that justifies revoking his prior release, release is the correct remedy.
ORDER
Based on the above, and on the full record before the Court, IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED THAT:
1. 	Petitioner Jose R.V.’s 	Petition for a Writ 	of Habeas Corpus (Dkt. 1) is
GRANTED.
2. 	The Court DECLARES that Jose R.V. is not subject to mandatory detention
under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) and ENJOINS Respondents from denying release
or other relief on the basis that he is subject to such mandatory detention.
3. 	The 	Court 	ORDERS 	Respondents 	to 	immediately 	release 	Jose 	R.V. 	in
Minnesota, with all of his personal effects seized during his arrest, including
but not limited to immigration paperwork, and without new conditions no
later than 12:00 PM on February 5, 2026.
4. 	Further, the Court ORDERS Respondents file a notice on ECF by no later than
12:00 PM on February 6, 2026 certifying his release. If Jose R.V. has not been
released by that time, then Respondents shall advise the Court about the reasons
his release has not occurred, and the specific steps Respondents are undertaking
to ensure his immediate release in Minnesota.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Date: February 4, 2026
s/Katherine Menendez
Katherine Menendez
United States District Judge
CASE 0:26-cv-00956-KMM-EMB Doc. 7 Filed 02/04/26 Page 4 of 4