Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Sandi C.,
Petitioner,
v.
Pamela Bondi, Attorney General; Kristi
Noem, Secretary, U.S. Department of
Homeland Security; Todd M. Lyons, Acting
Director of Immigration and Customs
Enforcement; and David Easterwood, Acting
Director, St. Paul Field Office Immigration
and Customs Enforcement,
Respondents.
File No. 26-cv-422 (ECT/ECW)
OPINION AND ORDER
Claire Glenn, Climate Defense Project, Minneapolis, MN, for Petitioner Sandi C.
Ana H. Voss and David W. Fuller, United States Attorney’s Office, Minneapolis, MN, for
Respondents Pamela Bondi, Kristi Noem, Todd M. Lyons, and David Easterwood.
Petitioner Sandi C. is a Venezuelan citizen who has lived in the United States for
more than two years. Pet. [ECF No. 1] ¶ 12. Sandi “entered the United States in September
2023 and immediately requested asylum.” 	Id. ¶ 13. 	Sandi’s “asylum proceedings are
ongoing” 	and 	he 	“has 	a 	valid 	work 	permit 	issued 	by 	Respondents.” 	Id. 	On
January 18, 2026, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) agents arrested Sandi
in front of his home in St. Paul, Minnesota, as part of “Operation Metro Surge.” Id. ¶¶ 12,
15, 17. Sandi was taken to “an unknown location.” Id. ¶¶ 15, 20; accord id. ¶ 7 (alleging
“[u]pon information and belief, [Sandi] is currently in ICE custody at an undisclosed
CASE 0:26-cv-00422-ECT-ECW Doc. 8 Filed 01/25/26 Page 1 of 5

2
location”); but see ECF No. 6 at 1 (asserting that Sandi “is currently detained within the
District of Minnesota by ICE”), and ECF No. 7 at 2 (“It has also [come] to undersigned
counsel’s attention that Respondents have or may soon move [Sandi] outside of the District
of Minnesota.”). Sandi “has no criminal record.” Pet. ¶ 14.1
Here, Sandi challenges his detention under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 	Pet. ¶¶ 2, 4. 	He
claims he has been wrongly classified as an 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) detainee (whose
detention is mandatory) rather than an 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) detainee (whose detention is
discretionary and who is entitled to a bond hearing). 	Pet. ¶¶ 27–29; see Jose J.O.E. v.
Bondi, 797 F. Supp. 3d 957, 961–62 (D. Minn. 2025) (explaining legal framework).
According to Sandi, 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 the Administrative
Procedure Act. 	Pet. ¶¶ 30–47. 	He seeks an order granting his release because “the law
that Respondents are using to detain [him] simply does not apply so as to authorize [his]
detention”; alternatively, an order requiring Respondents to hold a bond hearing pursuant
to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a); an order enjoining Respondents from transferring Sandi out of this
District pending the resolution of his habeas petition; and “any other and further relief that
this Court may deem just and proper.” Pet. ¶¶ 48–54; id. at 14.
In a two-paragraph response, Respondents state that Sandi is subject to detention
pursuant to § 1225(b)(2)(A) because Sandi “falls under the statutory definition of an
1 	Neither party provided the Court with Sandi’s Notice to Appear or the other
paperwork we’ve usually received in these cases. In this case, it doesn’t matter. In their
very brief response to Sandi’s habeas petition, Respondents did not contest any of the facts
alleged in the Petition. See ECF No. 6.
CASE 0:26-cv-00422-ECT-ECW Doc. 8 Filed 01/25/26 Page 2 of 5

3
‘applicant for admission,’ and an examining immigration officer has determined that
[Sandi] is ‘not clearly and without a doubt entitled to be admitted.’” ECF No. 6 at 1 (first
quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1); and then quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A)). Respondents
also state that Sandi’s petition “raises legal and factual issues similar to those in prior
habeas petitions this Court has decided,” and argues that the petition fails on the merits for
the same reasons set forth in the appeal of Avila v. Bondi, No. 25-cv-3741 (JRT/SGE),
2025 WL 2976539 (D. Minn. Oct. 21, 2025), appeal docketed, No. 25-3248 (8th Cir. Nov.
10, 2025). ECF No. 6 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.
Sandi 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.
2 	To the extent Respondents challenge this Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction to
consider Sandi’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-00422-ECT-ECW Doc. 8 Filed 01/25/26 Page 3 of 5

4
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 this writing, only
one federal court of appeals has ruled on the question, and it reached the same conclusion.
See Castañon-Nava v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 161 F.4th 1048, (7th Cir. 2025). Sandi
has lived in the United States for over two years. His detention falls under § 1226 and not
§ 1225(b)(2).
Respondents do not argue that Sandi is subject to § 1225(b)(2)(A) due to the fact
Sandi immediately sought asylum upon his entry into the United States. See ECF No. 6.
In the absence of any argument, and without more facts relating to Sandi’s request for
asylum, I see no reason to depart from my decisions in Misael v. Bondi, No. 26-cv-263
(ECT/EMB), 2026 WL 146510, at *2 (D. Minn. Jan. 20, 2026), and Ahmed M. v. Bondi,
No. 25-cv-4711 (ECT/SGE), 2026 WL 25627, at *2 (D. Minn. Jan. 5, 2026), and I conclude
that Sandi’s pending asylum application alone does not change the conclusion that his
detention falls under § 1226. Sandi is subject to discretionary detention and entitled to a
bond hearing.3
3 	The resolution of this statutory-interpretation question in Sandi’s favor makes it
unnecessary to address the Petition’s remaining grounds.
CASE 0:26-cv-00422-ECT-ECW Doc. 8 Filed 01/25/26 Page 4 of 5

5
ORDER
Therefore, based on the foregoing, and on all the files, records, and proceedings
herein, IT IS ORDERED THAT Petitioner Sandi C.’s Verified Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus [ECF No. 1] is GRANTED as follows:
1. 	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.
2. 	Respondents are ENJOINED from denying Petitioner a bond hearing on the
basis that 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) applies to Petitioner, and Respondents shall provide
Petitioner with a bond hearing in accordance with 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a)(2)(A).
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: January 25, 2026 	s/ Eric C. Tostrud
Eric C. Tostrud
United States District Court
CASE 0:26-cv-00422-ECT-ECW Doc. 8 Filed 01/25/26 Page 5 of 5