Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Manuel H.,
Petitioner,
v.
Kristi Noem, in her official capacity as
Secretary of the Department of Homeland
Security; Todd Lyons, in his official capacity
as Acting Director of United States
Immigration and Customs Enforcement; and
David Easterwood, in his official capacity as
Acting Director, St. Paul Field Office, U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement ,
Respondents.
No. 26-cv-0368 (SRN/DLM)
ORDER
Graham Blair Ojala-Barbour, Ojala-Barbour Law Firm, PLLC, 1100 7th St. W., Saint
Paul, MN 55102, for Petitioner Manuel H.
Ana Voss, U.S. Attorney’s Office, 300 S. 4th St., Minneapolis, MN 55415, for
Respondents
SUSAN RICHARD NELSON, United States District Judge
Before the Court is the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”) [Doc. No.
1] filed by Petitioner Manuel H. Petitioner seeks immediate release from detention or, in
CASE 0:26-cv-00368-SRN-DLM Doc. 6 Filed 01/21/26 Page 1 of 6

2
the alternative, an opportunity for a bond hearing pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a).
Respondents oppose the Petition.1 (Resp’ts’ Opp’n [Doc. No. 4].)
The Court has taken the Petition under advisement on the papers. For the reasons
set forth below, the Petition is granted as to a bond hearing.
I. 	BACKGROUND
Petitioner is a citizen of Mexico who has lived in the United States for more than 30
years. (Pet. ¶¶ 3, 43–45.) He has resided in the United States since about 1995, when he
was 15 years old. (Id. ¶¶ 44–45.)
On January 16, 2026, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) agents
detained Petitioner, who is currently detained in the Sherburne County Jail. 	Dep’t of
Homeland 	Sec., 	ICE, 	Online 	Detainee 	Locator 	System,
https://locator.ice.gov/odls/#/search (last visited Jan. 21, 2026). 	Prior to his immigration
detention, Petitioner was a resident of Buffalo, Minnesota. (Pet. ¶ 13.)
Respondents contend that Petitioner is subject to mandatory detention under §
1225(b)(2) and is therefore not entitled to a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). Their
position is consistent with new interim guidance from the Department of Homeland
Security (“DHS”)/ICE, and a recent decision from the Board of Immigration Appeals
(“BIA”) finding that all persons who enter the United States without inspection, including
1 	Respondents’ Response in Opposition was signed by attorney J. Cruz Rodriguez,
who is a non-admitted attorney in this District and who does not appear as counsel of
record. (See Text-Only Notice re: Non-Admitted Attorney [Doc. No. 5].)
CASE 0:26-cv-00368-SRN-DLM Doc. 6 Filed 01/21/26 Page 2 of 6

3
those who have been residing here for some time, are “applicants for admission” under 8
U.S.C. § 1225(a), subject to mandatory detention, rather than discretionary detention under
§ 1226(a). 	Maldonado v. Olson, 795 F. Supp. 3d 1134, 1150 (D. Minn. 2025) (noting
interim guidance); Matter of Yajure Hurtado, 29 I. & N. Dec. 216 (BIA 2025).
After his arrest, Petitioner filed the instant Petition, asserting that he is entitled to
immediate release or a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), at which an immigration
judge can assess whether he poses a flight risk or a danger to the community. (Pet. ¶¶ 23–
66.) 	Petitioner also requested that the Court issue an order to show cause enjoining
Respondents 	from 	removing 	or 	transferring 	him 	outside 	of 	this 	District 	pending
adjudication of his Petition. (Pet. at 17.)
On January 16, 2026, in the Order to Show Cause, the Court enjoined Petitioner’s
removal or transfer outside of this District until further order of the Court so that Petitioner
could consult with his counsel during the pendency of his Petition, and so there is no risk
that his removal from Minnesota would deprive the Court of jurisdiction over his Petition.
(Order to Show Cause [Doc. No. 3] ¶ 4.)
In Respondents’ one-paragraph response to the Petition, they invoke their prior
positions, as set forth in Avila v. Bondi, No. 25-3248 (8th Cir. Nov. 10, 2025), currently
pending before the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. 	(Resp’ts’ Opp’n at 1.) 	It is their
position that as a matter of statutory interpretation, Petitioner falls under the provisions of
8 U.S.C. § 1225, not § 1226, and therefore, is not entitled to a bond hearing or release.
CASE 0:26-cv-00368-SRN-DLM Doc. 6 Filed 01/21/26 Page 3 of 6

4
They concede that the instant Petition raises legal and factual issues similar to those in prior
habeas petitions this Court has decided.2 (Id.)
II. 	DISCUSSION
While the parties dispute whether 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) or § 1226(a) of the INA
applies to a noncitizen who is already residing in the United States, there is no dispute that
Petitioner was arrested while already residing in the United States.
This Court has previously found, along with the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals—
the only circuit court to have addressed the issue—and the vast majority of district courts
throughout the country, that the applicable detention scheme for noncitizens already
residing in the country is under § 1226(a), absent any exceptions under § 1226(c).
Maldonado v. Olson, 795 F. Supp. 3d 1134 (D. Minn. 2025), E.M. v. Noem, No. 25-cv-
3975 (SRN/DTS), 2025 WL 3157839 (D. Minn. Nov. 12, 2025); Castañon-Nava v. U.S.
Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 161 F.4th 1048, 1060–62 (7th Cir. 2025); see also Demirel v. Fed.
Detention Ctr., No. 25-5488, 2025 WL 3218243, at *4 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 18, 2025) (collecting
cases); Reyes v. Raycraft, No. 25-12546, 2025 WL 2609425, at *6–7 (E. D. Mich. Sept. 9,
2 	Respondents 	do 	not 	challenge 	subject 	matter 	jurisdiction 	or 	administrative
exhaustion. Nevertheless, the Court briefly addresses these issues. As to jurisdiction, the
Court finds that none of the jurisdiction-stripping provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1252 apply to
the question of whether mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2) or discretionary detention
under § 1226(a) applies. See Maldonado v. Olson, 795 F. Supp. 3d 1134 (D. Minn. 2025).
As to exhaustion, requiring administrative 	exhaustion would be futile in light of
Hurtado. See Ortiz v. Freden, --- F. Supp. 3d ---, No. 25-CV-960-LJV, 2025 WL 3085032,
at *5 (W.D.N.Y. Nov. 4. 2025) (finding exhaustion of remedies would be futile, even if
petitioner had not exhausted his remedies). Immigration judges would be obliged to follow
Hurtado’s ruling on the scope of § 1225(b)(2)(A).
CASE 0:26-cv-00368-SRN-DLM Doc. 6 Filed 01/21/26 Page 4 of 6

5
2024) (collecting cases); Yulexi T. v. Noem, No. 26-cv-68 (ECT/DTS), 2026 WL 77022, at
*2 (D. Minn. Jan. 10, 2026); Kelvin N. v. Bondi, No. 26-CV-32 (JMB/JFD), 2026 WL
63423, at *2–3 (D. Minn. Jan. 8, 2026); Iishaar-Abdi v. Klang, No. 25-CV-4686
(JRT/DTS), 2025 WL 3764853, at *1 (D. Minn. Dec. 30, 2025); Awaale v. Noem, No. 25-
cv-4551 (MJD/JFD), 2025 WL 3754012, at *1 (D. Minn. Dec. 29, 2025); Hugo v. Olson,
No. 25-cv-4593 (LMP/DTS), 2025 WL 3688074, at *2–3 (D. Minn. Dec. 19, 2025); Lionel
V.F. v. Bondi, No. 25-cv-4474 (PJS/LIB), 2025 WL 3485600, at *1 (D. Minn. Dec. 4,
2025). 	By contrast, § 1225(b)(2) applies to noncitizens at or near the border. 	Ortiz v.
Freden, --- F. Supp. 3d ---, No. 25-CV-960-LJV, 2025 WL 3085032, at *10 (W.D.N.Y.
Nov. 4. 2025). Respondents do not assert that any of the exceptions under § 1226(c) apply.
The 	Court 	remains 	unpersuaded 	by 	Respondents’ 	statutory 	interpretation 	of 	§§
1225(b)(2)(A), but notes that Respondents’ arguments are preserved for appeal.
Accordingly, the Court grants Petitioner’s request for a bond hearing under §
1226(a), as set forth below.
III. 	ORDER
Based on the submissions and the entire file and proceedings herein, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED that
1. 	Petitioner Manuel H.’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus [Doc. No. 1] is
GRANTED, as follows:
a. 	Petitioner is not subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2),
and is instead subject to detention, if at all, pursuant to the discretionary
provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a).
b. 	Within seven (7) days of the date of this Order, Respondents shall provide
Petitioner with a bond hearing in accordance with 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) at
CASE 0:26-cv-00368-SRN-DLM Doc. 6 Filed 01/21/26 Page 5 of 6

6
which the parties will be allowed to present evidence and argument regarding
whether Petitioner is a danger to the community and presents a flight risk if
not detained.
c. 	If Respondents do not provide Petitioner with a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1226(a) as required herein, Petitioner must be immediately released from
detention.
d. 	Within ten (10) days of this Order, the parties shall provide the Court with a
status update concerning the results of any bond hearing conducted pursuant
to this Order, or if no bond hearing was held, advise the Court regarding
Petitioner’s release. Further, the parties shall advise the Court whether any
additional proceedings in this matter are required and submit any proposals
for the scope of further litigation.
2. 	Respondents remain ENJOINED from removing, transferring, or otherwise
facilitating the removal of Petitioner from the District of Minnesota before the
ordered bond hearing. If the immigration judge determines that the Petitioner is
subject to detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), Respondents may request
permission from the Court to move Petitioner if unforeseen or emergency
circumstances arise that require Petitioner to be removed from the District. Any
such request must include an explanation for the request as well as a proposed
destination. 	The Court will then determine whether to grant the request and
permit transfer of Petitioner.
Dated: January 21, 2026 	s/Susan Richard Nelson
SUSAN RICHARD NELSON
United States District Judge
CASE 0:26-cv-00368-SRN-DLM Doc. 6 Filed 01/21/26 Page 6 of 6