Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
CIVIL NO. 26-CV-430 (MJD/SGE)
Victor P.,
Petitioner,
v.
Kristi Noem, et al.,
Respondents.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Victor P.’s 1 Verified Petition for
Habeas Corpus (“Petition”). (Dkt. 1.) Victor maintains that his detention violates the
Immigration and Nationality Act, his Fifth Amendment rights to due process, and the
Administrative Procedures Act. He requests a bond hearing consistent with 8
U.S.C. § 1226 and release from federal custody. (Dkt. 1.) Respondents oppose the Petition.
(Dkt. 7.) The matter has been referred to the undersigned by United States District Judge
Michael J. Davis for report and recommendation under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local
Rule 72.1. For the reasons set forth below, this Court recommends that the Petition be
GRANTED.
BACKGROUND
Victor is a citizen of El Salvador who entered the United States without inspection
in January 2021. (Dkt. ¶¶ 9.b, 22.) He has been in the United States for approximately 5
1 Pursuant to this District’s policy in immigration cases, the Court identifies Petitioner only
by his first name and last initial.
CASE 0:26-cv-00430-MJD-SGE Doc. 9 Filed 01/25/26 Page 1 of 6

years. On December 22, 2025, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) officers
arrested Victor. (Id. ¶ 22.) He is presently held at the Freeborn County Jail in Albert Lea,
Minnesota. (Id. ¶ 15.)
The Court, United States District Judge Michael J. Davis, issued an Order to Show
Cause on January 19, 2026, requiring Respondents to file an answer to the issues raised in
the Petition and enjoining Respondents from removing Victor from the District of
Minnesota until a final decision is made in his Petition. (Dkt. 4.) Victor filed a status update
on January 21, 2026. (Dkt. 6.) Attached to his update is an Immigration Judge’s order
denying his release, stating that Victor “is properly categorized as an applicant for
admission” and, therefore, the Immigration Court did not have authority to release him.
(Dkt. 6-1 at 1.) Respondents filed a response to the Petition, arguing that Victor’s detention
is appropriate under § 1225, that he is ineligible for release or bond under § 1226. (Dkt.
7.)2 Victor filed a reply on January 23, 2026. (Dkt. 8.) Ultimately, Victor asks that he be
immediately released. (Dkt. 1.)
ANALYSIS
Two statutes govern the detention of noncitizens pending removal proceedings—8
U.S.C. §§ 1225 and 1226. In recent months, Respondents, have taken the position that the
mandatory detention provision in 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) applies to noncitizens, already in
the United States, that entered without inspection. Respondents argue that in these
2 Respondents do not challenge this Court’s jurisdiction. Had Respondents done so, the Court
would have recommended that the district court judge find jurisdiction based on Judge
Provinzino’s persuasive analysis in Fuentes v. Olson, No. 25-cv-4456 (LMP/ECW), 2025 WL
3524455, at *1 (D. Minn. Dec. 9, 2025).
CASE 0:26-cv-00430-MJD-SGE Doc. 9 Filed 01/25/26 Page 2 of 6

circumstances, noncitizens are not entitled to a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) as
a matter of statutory interpretation. Victor argues that he is not subject to mandatory
detention under § 1225(b)(2) and is instead subject to the discretionary framework of
§ 1226(a), which requires that he receive a bond hearing. In sum, the parties’ disagreement
amounts to one of statutory interpretation: whether 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) or § 1226(a)
applies to noncitizens already residing in the United States.
Respondents concede that Victor’s claim is similar to the numerous other
immigration cases in this District3 where noncitizens, found in Minnesota and detained by
ICE, seek bond hearings pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), and in which the majority of
district judges in this district have ruled against Respondents’ new interpretation of 8
U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). See E.M. v. Noem, No. 25-cv-3975 (SRN/DTS), 2025 WL 3157839
(D. Minn. Nov. 12, 2025); Santos M.C. v. Olson, No. 25-cv-4264 (PJS/DJF), 2025 WL
3281787 (D. Minn. Nov. 25, 2025); Jose J.O.E. v. Bondi, No. 25-cv-3051 (ECT/DJF),
2025 WL 2466670 (D. Minn. Aug. 27, 2025); Andres R.E. v. Bondi, No. 25-cv-3946
(NEB/DLM), 2025 WL 3146312 (D. Minn. Nov. 4, 2025); Belsai D.S. v. Bondi, No. 25-
cv-3682 (KMM/EMB), 2025 WL 2802947 (D. Minn. Oct. 1, 2025); Eliseo A.A. v. Olson,
No. 25-cv-3381 (JWB/DJF), 2025 WL 2886729 (D. Minn. Oct. 8, 2025); Francisco T. v.
Bondi, No. 25-cv-3219 (JMB/DTS), 2025 WL 2629839 (D. Minn. Aug. 29, 2025); Roberto
M. v. Olson, No. 25-cv-4456 (LMP/ECW), ECF No. 15 (D. Minn. Dec. 9, 2025); Iishaar-
Abdi v. Klang, No. 25-cv-4686 (JRT/DTS), 2025 WL 3764853, at *1 (D. Minn. Dec. 30,
3 See Dkt. 7 (“This Petition raises legal and factual issues similar to those confronted (and
decided) by this District Court in prior habeas petitions.”).
CASE 0:26-cv-00430-MJD-SGE Doc. 9 Filed 01/25/26 Page 3 of 6

2025); but see Abdirhamaan G. v. Noem et al., 26-cv-34 (PAM/SGE), Dkt. 7 (adopting
Respondents’ interpretation of the statute). Indeed, Judge Davis has also concluded that
§ 1226(a) governs the detention of noncitizens who are already present or residing in the
United States, such as Victor—not § 1225(b), which governs the detention of noncitizens
seeking admission into the United States. See Awaale v. Noem, No. 25-cv-4551
(MJD/JFD), 2025 WL 3754012, at *1 (D. Minn. Dec. 29, 2025); Mohamed A. v. Bondi et
al., 25-cv-4515 (MJD/ECW), Dkt. 17.
Beyond Minnesota, district courts across the nation and the Seventh Circuit Court
of Appeals, have addressed this exact question and agreed that § 1226(a), not § 1225(b),
governs detention of noncitizens already present in the United States. See Castañon-Nava
v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 161 F.4th 1048, 1060–62 (7th Cir. 2025); Demirel v. Fed.
Detention Ctr., No. 25-cv-5488, 2025 WL 3218243, at *4 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 18, 2025)
(collecting cases); Reyes v. Raycraft, No. 25-cv-12546, 2025 WL 2609425, at *6–7 (E.D.
Mich. Sept. 9, 2024) (collecting cases).
Respondents do not assert that Victor has any criminal history, nor do they contest
that Victor was arrested4 by ICE while already residing in the United States for years. Nor
do Respondents offer any argument that a different exception would subject Victor to
mandatory detention under § 1226(c) or that his case is in any way distinguishable from
the many other cases in this District. Respondents merely maintain the same argument that
detention is mandatory under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b), which as discussed above, has been
4 It is unclear whether Respondents had a warrant for Victor’s arrest. Victor does not argue that
his arrest was warrantless. (See Dkt. 1.)
CASE 0:26-cv-00430-MJD-SGE Doc. 9 Filed 01/25/26 Page 4 of 6

repeatedly rejected. See Fuentes, 2025 WL 3524455, at * 1 (“The Government has now
been told nearly 300 times (and counting) that its mandatory-detention scheme is unlawful.
Yet as this case illustrates, the Government has not taken “no” for an answer.”) (citing
Demirel, 2025 WL 3218243, at *4). The undersigned finds no reason to depart from the
well-reasoned judicial consensus in this district and across the country.5 Accordingly, the
undersigned recommends that Victor’s Petition be GRANTED.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on all the files, records, and proceedings herein, this Court hereby
RECOMMENDS that the Petition (Dkt. 1) be GRANTED, and that Victor P. be afforded
a bond hearing at the earliest opportunity, in the District of Minnesota, where witnesses
and evidence are likely to be found.
Dated: January25, 2026
s/Shannon G. Elkins
SHANNON G. ELKINS
United States Magistrate Judge
NOTICE
Filing Objections: This Report and Recommendation is not an order or judgment of the
District Court and is therefore not appealable directly to the Eighth Circuit Court of
Appeals.
Under the circumstances of this case and Local Rule 72.2(b)(1), the parties may file and
serve specific written objections to a magistrate judge’s proposed findings and
recommendations within 2 days of the filing of the Report and Recommendation without
regard to weekends or holidays. A party may respond to those objections within 2 days
after being served a copy of the objections without regard to weekends or holidays. See
5 Because this Court determines that Victor is entitled to a bond hearing under § 1226, it need not
address his claims that he is entitled to relief as a member of the Maldanado Bautista class.
CASE 0:26-cv-00430-MJD-SGE Doc. 9 Filed 01/25/26 Page 5 of 6

Local Rule 72.2(b)(2). All objections and responses must comply with the word or line
limits set forth in Local Rule 72.2(c).
CASE 0:26-cv-00430-MJD-SGE Doc. 9 Filed 01/25/26 Page 6 of 6