Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Jorge H. M. O.,1
Petitioner,
v.
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,
Respondents.
Case No. 26-CV-609 (MJD/DLM)
REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION
Petitioner Jorge H.M.O. has filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1),
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The petition has been referred to a United States Magistrate
Judge for the issuance of a report and recommendation. Petitioner claims he is being denied
access to a bond hearing to which he is entitled under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). Respondents
counter that Petitioner is not eligible for a bond hearing because his detention is mandatory
under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). For the reasons set forth in Beltran v. Bondi, No. 25-04604
(MJD/DTS), 2025 WL 3719856, at *1 (D. Minn. Dec. 23, 2025), the Court recommends
that the petition be granted. The Court further recommends that Respondents’ Motion to
Dismiss be denied, since the factual basis which Respondents claim strips jurisdiction from
1 This District has adopted a policy of using only the first name and last initial of any
nongovernmental parties in immigration cases.
CASE 0:26-cv-00609-MJD-DLM Doc. 8 Filed 01/28/26 Page 1 of 5

2
this Court occurred only because Respondents violated an Order of the Honorable Michael
J. Davis, the District Judge assigned to this case.
Petitioner is a citizen of Colombia. (Doc. 1 ¶ 8.) He has lived in the United States
since 2022. (Id. ¶ 13.) He was detained by Respondents on January 15, 2026. (Id. ¶ 15.)
His arrest was made upon forcible entry into his home by immigration authorities without
a warrant. (Id.) Respondents have refused to provide him a bond hearing, citing Matter of
Yajure Hurtado, 29 I. & N. Dec. 216 (BIA 2025). His Verified Petition was filed on January
23, 2026.
The day after Petitioner filed his Petition, the Court issued an Order directing
Respondent to file an answer no later than January 27, 2026. (Doc. 3.) Importantly, that
Order also addressed jurisdiction; Judge Davis ruled that 1) “habeas jurisdiction attached
at the time of Petitioner’s apprehension in this District;” 2) “jurisdiction is not defeated by
any subsequent decision by Respondents to transfer Petitioner to another state;” 3) “Habeas
jurisdiction turns on custody and control, not on the Government’s unilateral post-seizure
movement of the detainee;” and 4) “The position that jurisdiction lies exclusively in the
district to which Respondents transfer a petitioner would permit the Government to
determine the forum for judicial review through its own logistics. Federal courts may not
be divested of jurisdiction in that manner.” (Doc. 3 ¶ 4.) This Order also enjoined
Respondent from removing Petitioner from the District of Minnesota while this habeas
petition was pending (Doc. 3 ¶ 5), and ordered Respondents to return Petitioner to
Minnesota if he had already been moved. (Doc. 3 ¶ 6).
CASE 0:26-cv-00609-MJD-DLM Doc. 8 Filed 01/28/26 Page 2 of 5

3
Respondents 	answered 	on 	January 	27, 	2026. 	(Doc. 	5.) 	In 	their 	response,
Respondents challenge only the Court’s jurisdiction to decide this case, not the legal basis
for Petitioner’s detention. According to Respondents, since Petitioner is now in El Paso,
Texas, this Court has no jurisdiction to consider the habeas petition. Accordingly, say
Respondents, this matter should be dismissed or transferred to the Western District of
Texas.
Respondents are wrong. The Court has already ruled on its jurisdiction in this case,
since Petitioner was “apprehended within the District of Minnesota by federal officers and
immediately placed into federal custody [in Minesota].” (Doc. 3 ¶ 4.) Because the petition
“challenges the legality of that seizure and detention,” the Court determined it had
jurisdiction to consider the petition. (Id.) That Order also required Respondents to return
Petitioner to Minnesota if he had been removed. (Id. ¶ 6.) Respondents admit Petitioner
has been moved to El Paso, but instead of complying with the Court’s return Order use the
fact of Petitioner’s transfer as a basis to claim this Court lacks jurisdiction. (Doc. 5 at 4.)
Because the Court has already made a determination on its jurisdiction in this case,
the procedurally appropriate way to challenge that determination would be through a
request to file a motion to reconsider, pursuant to D. Minn. LR 7.1(j). No such request was
filed, and the Court can identify no “compelling circumstances” to grant such a request.
See D. Minn. LR 7.1(j). While a court must always convince itself of its own jurisdiction
to hear a matter, that has already happened. No circumstances support revisiting that
determination.
CASE 0:26-cv-00609-MJD-DLM Doc. 8 Filed 01/28/26 Page 3 of 5

4
Turning to the merits, Petitioner should prevail. The law and the facts of this case
are similar to Beltran v. Bondi, No. 25-04604 (MJD/DTS), 2025 WL 3719856, at *1 (D.
Minn. Dec. 23, 2025). (Resp’ts’ Resp. at 4, Dkt. No. 5.) In Beltran, Judge Davis determined
that § 1226(a) governs the detention of noncitizens who are already residing in the United
States, such as Petitioner—not § 1225(b)(2), which governs the detention of noncitizens
seeking admission into the United States. Beltran, 2025 WL 3719856, at *3. If seeking
admission, a noncitizen is subject to mandatory detention and not entitled to a bond
hearing; if already residing in the United States, detention is discretionary, and the
noncitizen is entitled to a bond hearing. Id.
Respondents have not shown how this case is materially distinguishable from
Beltran. Thus, the Court recommends granting this petition on the same grounds as it
granted the petition in Beltran. The parties’ attention is directed to the shorter than usual
deadlines for filing objections to this Report and Recommendation and for filing responses
to those objections, set forth in the “Notice” below.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:
1. Petitioner Jorge H. M. O.’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Dkt. No. 1) be
GRANTED insofar as Respondents be ordered to hold a bond hearing under 8
U.S.C. § 1226(a) before an immigration judge in Minnesota within seven days of
an order adopting this Report and Recommendation; and
2. 	If Respondents do not provide Petitioner with a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1226(a), Petitioner be immediately released from detention.
CASE 0:26-cv-00609-MJD-DLM Doc. 8 Filed 01/28/26 Page 4 of 5

5
Date: January 28, 2026 	s/Douglas L. Micko
Douglas L Micko
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 D. Minn. LR 72.2(b)(1), “[a] party may file and serve specific written
objections to a magistrate judge’s proposed findings and recommendations within 14 days
after being served with a copy of the recommended disposition, unless the court sets a
different deadline.” (Emphasis added.) The Court modifies the deadline such that
objections are due on or before January 30, 2026. Responses to objections are due on
or before February 2, 2026. All objections and responses must comply with the word or
line limits set forth in Local Rule 72.2(c).
CASE 0:26-cv-00609-MJD-DLM Doc. 8 Filed 01/28/26 Page 5 of 5