Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHERN DIVISION
WISLANDI ESCOBAR CASTEJON,
Petitioner,
v.
KRISTI NOEM, SECRETARY OF
HOMELAND SECURITY; et al.;
Respondents.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 6:26-cv-03049-RK
ORDER
Petitioner Wislandi Escobar Castejon is currently being held in custody of the U.S.
Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement at the Greene County
Justice Center in Springfield, Missouri. 	Petitioner entered the United States without legal
authorization over three years ago.1 On January 16, 2026, Petitioner was taken into custody by
federal immigration authorities when he attended a check-in at an ICE office. Petitioner has been
detained without a bond hearing, pending removal proceedings. Federal Respondents2 argue in an
abbreviated show-cause response brief that Petitioner is subject to mandatory detention under
8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A). (See generally Doc. 6.) Petitioner argues, inter alia, that as a matter of
statutory interpretation he is not subject to mandatory detention pending removal under
§ 1225(b)(2)(A) but is instead subject to discretionary detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), which
requires a bond hearing.
Title 28 U.S.C. § 2241 authorizes federal courts to grant a writ of habeas corpus on
application of a person (including an alien unlawfully in the United States) held “in custody in
violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” See Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542
U.S. 507, 525 (2004). As Federal Respondents acknowledge, this habeas petition primarily raises
1 After entering the United States in June 2022, Petitioner was released on parole and timely filed
an asylum application. (Doc. 1 at ¶ 23.) Petitioner later received an employment authorization document
allowing him to legally work in the United States. (Id. at ¶ 5.) The status of Petitioner’s asylum application
is not clear from the habeas record filed in this case.
2 “Federal Respondents” refers to Kristi Noem, Secretary of Homeland Security, and Samuel Olsen,
Field Office Director, Chicago Field Office, Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Respondent Greene
County Sheriff James Arnott, named in his official capacity, did not file a show-cause response.
Case 6:26-cv-03049-RK Document 8 Filed 02/24/26 Page 1 of 3

2
a question of law (specifically, a question of statutory interpretation under the Immigration and
Nationality Act) that this Court, among many other district courts, has recently addressed. The
Court, consistent with other district judges in the Western District, has rejected the federal
government’s interpretation of § 1225(b)(2)(A) and has held that for persons like Petitioner who
have previously entered the United States unlawfully and remained for some time, if detained
pending removal proceedings, the controlling detention statute is § 1226(a), and therefore a bond
hearing is required. See, e.g., Vega v. Arnott, No. 6:26-cv-3097-MDH, 2026 WL 482906, at *2-6
(W.D. Mo. Feb. 20, 2026); Francisco v. Arnott, No. 25-03377-CV-S-BP, 2025 WL 3754231, at *3-
5 (W.D. Mo. Dec. 29, 2025); Escoto v. Arnott, No. 25-cv-03364-BCW, doc. 6 (W.D. Mo. Dec. 17,
2025) (slip op.); Flores-Espinoza v. Arnott, No. 4:25-cv-00791-RK, doc. 8 (W.D. Mo. Dec. 1,
2025) (slip op.); Hernandez-Cuevas v. Olson, No. 4:25-cv-00830-BP, doc. 10 (W.D. Mo. Nov. 5,
2025) (slip op.).3
Based on the plain text and meaning of the relevant statutes, the Court finds as a matter of
law, consistent with the prior orders referenced above, that the Immigration and Nationality Act
3 The Eighth Circuit has not yet decided this issue. The Court of Appeals held oral argument on
February 19, 2026, in Avila v. Bondi, No. 25-3248, raising this legal question in a habeas case currently on
appeal. Of the two Courts of Appeals to have considered the issue, the Seventh Circuit has rejected the
federal government’s interpretation, Castañon-Nava v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 161 F.4th 1048, 1050-
62 (7th Cir. 2025), and the Fifth Circuit has largely adopted the federal government’s interpretation,
Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, No. 25-20496, 2026 WL 323330, at *4-10 (5th Cir. Feb. 6, 2026).
The majority view among district courts, including of district courts in the Eighth Circuit, adopts
the same conclusion as this Court and rejects the federal government’s interpretation of § 1225(b)(2)(A) as
the controlling detention provision in similar habeas cases. 	See, e.g., Angel-Becerril v. Noem, No.
4:26CV3031, 2026 WL 446455 (D. Neb. Feb. 17, 2026); Riky A.M.L. v. Bondi, No. 26-1429 (JRT/JFD),
2026 WL 452419 (D. Minn. Feb. 17, 2026); Yanchaliquin v. Bondi, No. 8:25CV743, 2026 WL 412453 (D.
Neb. Feb. 13, 2026); Singh v. Easterwood, No. 4:26CV3033, 2026 WL 381898 (D. Neb. Feb. 11, 2026);
Alex H. v. Bondi, No. 26-CV-1255 (JMB/DTS), 2026 WL 381688 (D. Minn. Feb. 11, 2026); Victor O. v.
Bondi, No. 26-CV-1122 (ECT/LIB), 2026 WL 392428 (D. Minn. Feb. 11, 2026); Singh v. McDaniel, No.
C26-0003-LTS, 2026 WL 369757 (N.D. Iowa Feb. 10, 2026); Miguel T.G. v. Bondi, No. 26-CV-243
(NEB/ECW), 2026 WL 172722 (D. Minn. Jan. 22, 2026); Victor S.M. v. Noem, No. 26-400 (DWF/EMB),
2026 WL 161445 (D. Minn. Jan. 21, 2026); Sara G. v. Bondi, No. 26-335 (DSD/DJF), 2026 WL 163000
(D. Minn. Jan. 21, 2026); Beltran v. Bondi, No. 25-04604 (MJD/DTS), 2025 WL 3719856 (D. Minn. Dec.
23, 2025); Hugo v. Olson, No. 25-cv-4593 (LMP/DTS), 2025 WL 3688074 (D. Minn. Dec. 19, 2025);
Alvarez v. Lyons, No. 8:25-CV-672, 2025 WL 3564733 (D. Neb. Dec. 12, 2025); Ramirez-Ramirez v. Beuter,
No. 25-CV-185-CJW-MAR, 2025 WL 3499057 (N.D. Iowa Dec. 5, 2025); Leonel V.F. v. Bondi, No. 25-
CV-4474 (PJS/LIB), 2025 WL 3485600 (D. Minn. Dec. 4, 2025); Adonay E.M. v. Noem, __ F. Supp. 3d __,
2025 WL 3157839 (D. Minn. Nov. 12, 2025); Mayamu K. v. Bondi, No. 25-3035 (JWB/LIB), 2025 WL
3641819 (D. Minn. Oct. 20, 2025); Barrajas v. Noem, No. 4:25-cv-00322-SHL-HCA, 2025 WL 2717650
(S.D. Iowa Sept. 23, 2025); Marcelo v. Trump, 801 F. Supp. 3d 807 (S.D. Iowa Sept. 10, 2025).
Case 6:26-cv-03049-RK Document 8 Filed 02/24/26 Page 2 of 3

3
does not authorize Petitioner’s mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A). Instead, the
relevant and applicable detention provision is 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). 	Accordingly, Petitioner is
lawfully entitled to bond consideration as an alien detainee in custody of federal immigration
authorities pending final resolution of the removal proceedings instituted against him. The Court
therefore ORDERS that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, (Doc. 1), is GRANTED in this
regard. The Court FURTHER ORDERS that Petitioner be released or granted a bond hearing
within 10 days of the date of this Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Roseann A. Ketchmark
ROSEANN A. KETCHMARK, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DATED: February 24, 2026
Case 6:26-cv-03049-RK Document 8 Filed 02/24/26 Page 3 of 3