Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Jose Y.L.,
Petitioner,
v.
Pamela Bondi, et al,
Respondents.
No. 26-cv-823 (KMM/JFD)
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Jose Y.L.’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas
Corpus. (Dkt. 1.) For the reasons below, the Court grants the habeas petition.
Background
Jose Y.L. is a citizen of Ecuador. (Id. at 2.)1 He has lived in the United States since
April 2021 with his wife and two children. (Id.) He entered the United States without
inspection and now has a pending application for asylum. (Id. at 12.) Jose Y.L. has been
complying with his immigration requirements and has a hearing scheduled for July 2026.
(Id.) Jose Y.L. was arrested by immigration authorities on January 27, 2026. (Id. at 13.) He
is currently held in El Paso, Texas. (Id. at 2.) Respondents’ position is that Petitioner is
subject to mandatory detention, seemingly pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2), and they
point to no other statutory or legal basis for his detention. (See Dkt. 8.)
1 The Court cites to the page number of the petition, as each section of the petition
restarts the paragraph count from 1.
CASE 0:26-cv-00823-KMM-JFD Doc. 10 Filed 02/02/26 Page 1 of 4

2
Analysis
A court may issue a writ of habeas corpus if a person “is in custody in violation of
the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). And
district courts have authority to grant writs of habeas corpus “within their respective
jurisdictions.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a). That power “includes jurisdiction to hear habeas
challenges to immigration-related detention.” Jose J.O.E. v. Bondi, 797 F. Supp. 3d 957,
965 (D. Minn. 2025). “The burden is on the petitioner to prove illegal detention by a
preponderance of the evidence.” Id.
This case is one of many filed in recent months in this district challenging the
application of § 1225(b)(2) to aliens who are already in the United States, either having
entered without inspection or having been previously released pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226.
This Court has previously held that, because such people are not “seeking admission,” as
set forth in § 1225(b)(2), that provision—which mandates detention—does not apply to
them. See, e.g., Belsai D.S. v. Bondi, No. 25-cv-03682 (KMM/EMB), 2025 WL 2802947
(D. Minn. Oct. 1, 2025). The same legal conclusion has been adopted by countless district
courts around the country in similar cases, by the only Court of Appeals to have addressed
the issue, and by many courts in this district. Respondents’ position is that Belsai D.S. and
the many other cases reaching the same conclusion were wrongly decided. Respondents
also point out that the underlying legal issue is pending before the Eighth Circuit and that
they wish to preserve their position for appeal.
Although the Court has considered the arguments raised by the government, and
reviewed the authority cited in this and in other cases, the Court declines to repudiate its
CASE 0:26-cv-00823-KMM-JFD Doc. 10 Filed 02/02/26 Page 2 of 4

3
analysis from Belsai D.S. and instead continues to follow the analysis of most courts to
have considered the matter. Of course, these issues are complex, and Respondents’
arguments are not frivolous. But the Court continues to believe that the better reading of
the relevant statutory scheme is that § 1225(b)(2) does not apply to Jose Y.L. or others who
are similarly situated, and his mandatory detention under that provision is not supported by
the law.
The Court further concludes that immediate release is the appropriate remedy. The
government has not claimed to have a “warrant issued by the Attorney General” supporting
Petitioner’s recent arrest, nor has the government produced one to the Court. As U.S.
District Judge Eric Tostrud recently explained, “[s]ection 1226 provides that ‘[o]n a
warrant issued by the Attorney General, an alien may be arrested and detained.’” Ahmed
M. v. Bondi et al., 25-CV-4711 (ECT/SGE), 2026 WL 25627, at *3 (D. Minn. Jan. 5, 2026).
Judge Tostrud concluded that the issuance of a warrant is a necessary prerequisite to even
discretionary detention under § 1226(a), citing several decisions from other districts. Id. In
Ahmed M., the petitioner had been rearrested with no warrant and no allegation of a
violation of the conditions of his previous release. Therefore, the appropriate remedy in
Ahmed M. was immediate release rather than a detention hearing. See also Juan S.R. v.
Bondi, 26-cv-05 (PJS/LIB) (Order (Dkt. 8) Jan. 12, 2026) (same).
The Court agrees with the reasoning of these cases. Despite the Court seeking a
specific response on this issue in the Order to Show Cause (Dkt. 4 ¶ 2e), Respondents point
to neither a warrant supporting the applicability of § 1226(a) to Jose Y.L., nor any other
statutory basis for a bond hearing, so immediate release is required.
CASE 0:26-cv-00823-KMM-JFD Doc. 10 Filed 02/02/26 Page 3 of 4

4
ORDER
Based on the above, and on the full record before the Court, IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED THAT:
1. 	Petitioner 	Jose Y.L.’s 	Petition 	for 	a Writ 	of 	Habeas 	Corpus 	(Dkt. 	1) 	is
GRANTED.
2. 	The Court DECLARES that Jose Y.L. is not subject to mandatory detention
under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) and ENJOINS Respondents from denying release
or other relief on the basis that he is subject to such mandatory detention.
3. 	The Court ORDERS Respondents to release Jose Y.L. in Minnesota as soon as
possible, with all of his personal effects seized during his arrest, including
but not limited to immigration paperwork, and without conditions.
4. 	Further, the Court ORDERS Respondents file a notice on ECF by no later than
5:00 PM on Tuesday, February 3, 2026, certifying that Jose Y.L. has been
returned to Minnesota and released. If Jose Y.L. has not been released by that
time, then Respondents shall advise the Court about the reasons his release has
not occurred, and the specific steps Respondents are undertaking to ensure his
immediate release in Minnesota.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Date: February 2, 2026 	s/Katherine M. Menendez
Katherine M. Menendez
United States District Judge
CASE 0:26-cv-00823-KMM-JFD Doc. 10 Filed 02/02/26 Page 4 of 4