Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Cristian Z.,
Petitioner,
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-157 (ECT/ECW)
OPINION AND ORDER
David L. Wilson and Gabriela Sophia Anderson, Wilson Law Group, Minneapolis, MN,
for Petitioner Cristian Z.
Ana H. Voss,1 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.
1 	Respondents’ response brief was signed by Julie Le on behalf of the United States
Attorney’s Office. See ECF No. 5. Ms. Le has not filed a notice of appearance in this case.
See generally Dkt.
CASE 0:26-cv-00157-ECT-ECW Doc. 8 Filed 01/16/26 Page 1 of 5

2
Petitioner Cristian Z. is an Ecuadoran citizen who entered the United States without
authorization on or about May 17, 2023. 	Pet. ¶¶ 21, 37–38. 	“Respondents encountered
[Cristian], processed him, and released him under an Order of Release under his own
Recognizance (OREC).” 	Id. ¶ 39 (citing ECF No. 2-1 (copy of May 18, 2023 Order of
Release on Recognizance)). 	“Respondents commenced removal proceedings under
8 U.S.C. § 1229a.” Id. ¶ 40. 	Cristian was detained “[o]n or about January 9, 2026.” Pet.
¶ 42. 	Cristian “has been compliant with all conditions of his release,” and he “has not
committed an offense that might invoke 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c).” Id. ¶¶ 43–44.
Here, Cristian challenges his detention under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Pet. ¶ 6. He claims
he has been wrongly classified as a § 1225(b)(2) detainee (whose detention is mandatory)
rather than a § 1226 detainee (whose detention is discretionary and who is entitled to a
bond hearing). 	Id. ¶¶ 3, 46–65, 76–106; see Jose J.O.E. v. Bondi, 797 F. Supp. 3d 957,
961–62 (D. Minn. 2025) (explaining legal framework). 	According to Cristian, that
misclassification and denial of a bond hearing violate his right to due process under the
Fifth Amendment, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1225(b)(2) and 1226(a), the Administrative Procedure Act,
and § 1226’s implementing regulations. See Pet. ¶¶ 80–106. He seeks a declaration that
his detention absent a bond hearing and without a warrant is unlawful; issuance of a writ
of habeas corpus ordering Respondents to immediately release him from custody or set a
bond hearing pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a); and an order enjoining his removal or transfer
out of the District of Minnesota during the pendency of this case. Pet. at 26–27.
In a one-paragraph response, Respondents state that Cristian’s petition “raises legal
and factual issues similar to those in prior habeas petitions this Court has decided,” and
CASE 0:26-cv-00157-ECT-ECW Doc. 8 Filed 01/16/26 Page 2 of 5

3
argues that the petition fails on the merits for the same reasons set forth in the appeal of
Avila v. Bondi, No. 25-cv-3248 (8th Cir. Docketed Nov. 10, 2025). 	See ECF No. 5 at 1.
This raises an issue of statutory interpretation2 that courts in this District have repeatedly
considered and rejected, and it will be rejected here as well.
Cristian has shown he has 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 January 10, 2026,
only one federal court of appeals has ruled on the question, and it reached the same
2 	To the extent Respondents challenge this Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction to
consider Cristian’s petition by way of their response in Avila, 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 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).
CASE 0:26-cv-00157-ECT-ECW Doc. 8 Filed 01/16/26 Page 3 of 5

4
conclusion. See Castañon-Nava v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 161 F.4th 1048, (7th Cir.
2025). 	Cristian has lived in the United States for two years. 	His detention falls under
§ 1226 and not § 1225(b)(2).
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-SDN, 2025 WL 2688541, at *11 (D. Me. Sept. 21, 2025), appeal filed
(Nov. 6, 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-SDN, 2025 WL 2783642, at *5 (D. Me. Sept. 30, 2025);
J.A.C.P. v. Wofford, No. 1:25-cv-01354-KES-SKO (HC), 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, Cristian
requested in his Petition that he be immediately released “because he was not detained with
a warrant of arrest, Form I-200.” 	Pet. at 27 ¶ 7. 	Respondents have not produced any
warrant, nor have they advanced any specific argument that Cristian’s release is an
unwarranted remedy. See ECF No. 5.
CASE 0:26-cv-00157-ECT-ECW Doc. 8 Filed 01/16/26 Page 4 of 5

5
“[R]elease is an available and appropriate remedy” for “detention that lacks a lawful
predicate.” 	Order on Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Vedat C. v. Bondi, No.
25-cv-4642 (JWB/DTS) (D. Minn. Dec. 19, 2025), ECF No. 9 at 6 (citing Munaf v. Geren,
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 (same); 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)).
ORDER
Therefore, based on the foregoing, and on all the files, records, and proceedings
herein, IT IS ORDERED THAT Petitioner Cristian Z.’s Verified Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus [ECF No. 1] is GRANTED as follows:
1. 	The Court DECLARES that Petitioner is not subject to mandatory detention
under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2).
2. 	Respondents shall release Petitioner from custody as soon as practicable,
subject to the conditions of his May 18, 2023 Order of Release on Recognizance.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: January 16, 2026, at 9:30 a.m. 	s/ Eric C. Tostrud
Eric C. Tostrud
United States District Court
CASE 0:26-cv-00157-ECT-ECW Doc. 8 Filed 01/16/26 Page 5 of 5