Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Edy L.,
Petitioner,
v.
Pamela Bondi, Attorney General; Kristi
Noem, Secretary, U.S. Department of
Homeland Security; Department of
Homeland Security; Todd M. Lyons, Acting
Director of Immigration and Customs
Enforcement; Immigration and Customs
Enforcement; Daren K. Margolin, Director
for Executive Office for Immigration
Review; Executive Office for Immigration
Review; and David Easterwood, Acting
Director, St. Paul Field Office, Immigration
and Customs Enforcement,
Respondents.
File No. 26-cv-65 (ECT/DTS)
OPINION AND ORDER
David L. Wilson and Olivia Anderson-Petroske, Wilson Law Group, Minneapolis, MN,
for Petitioner Edy L.
Ana H. Voss and David W. Fuller, United States Attorney’s Office, Minneapolis, MN, for
Respondents 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.
CASE 0:26-cv-00065-ECT-SGE Doc. 8 Filed 01/13/26 Page 1 of 5

2
Petitioner Edy L. is a Guatemalan citizen who has lived in the United States without
authorization since 2019,1 when he entered the country without inspection. See Pet. [ECF
No. 1] ¶¶ 13, 27–28; ECF No. 1-1 at 1. 	On May 20, 2019, United States Border Patrol
(“USBP”) encountered Edy at or near Hidalgo, Texas. ECF No. 6 ¶ 8. On May 26, 2019,
USBP issued Edy a Form I-862 Notice to Appear, stating that Edy was subject to removal
from the United States under Section 212(a)(6)(A)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality
Act (codified under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i)). See id. ¶ 9; ECF No. 1-1. The Notice to
Appear identified Edy as “an alien present in the United States who has not been admitted
or paroled.” ECF No. 1-1 at 1. The box on the form for “arriving alien” was not checked.
See id. Edy was released “under supervision or his own recognizance.” Pet. ¶ 30; see ECF
No. 6 ¶ 9. On May 27, 2020, Edy filed an Application for Asylum and for Withholding of
Removal, see ECF No. 6 ¶ 10, but the status of the asylum application has not been
provided. 	On or about January 6, 2026, Edy was detained in Minnesota. Pet. ¶ 32. “At
the time of his detention, [Edy] had a valid employment authorization document.” Id. ¶ 33.
“On January 7, 2026, [Edy] was transferred to El Paso Camp East Montana in El Paso,
[Texas] for bed space decompression.” 	ECF No. 6 ¶ 11. 	“At the time of the transfer,
[Immigration and Customs Enforcement/Enforcement and Removal Operations] was not
aware of any habeas that was filed nor any requests to not be transferred.” 	Id. 	It is
1 	“ICE first encountered [Edy] on June 8, 2011, at the Riverside Regional Jail in
Hopewell, [Virginia].” 	See ECF No. 6 ¶ 5. 	On May 23, 2013, an immigration judge in
Arlington, Virginia, granted him voluntary departure, and on September 23, 2013, Edy
departed the United States. See id. ¶¶ 6–7. Respondents do not argue that Edy’s prior entry
into the United States affects the legal analysis here.
CASE 0:26-cv-00065-ECT-SGE Doc. 8 Filed 01/13/26 Page 2 of 5

3
undisputed that Edy has no criminal history that would subject him to mandatory custody
under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c). See Pet. ¶¶ 34, 37.
Here, Edy challenges his detention under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Pet. ¶ 8. He claims he
has been wrongly classified as a § 1225(b)(2) detainee (whose detention is mandatory)
rather than a § 1226 detainee (whose detention is discretionary and who is entitled to a
bond hearing). Id. ¶¶ 2, 41–63, 72–80; see Jose J.O.E. v. Bondi, 797 F. Supp. 3d 957, 961–
62 (D. Minn. 2025) (explaining legal framework). According to Edy, 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 1226(a), and § 1226’s implementing regulations. 	See Pet.
¶¶ 72–80, 86–94. He seeks a declaration that his detention absent a bond hearing violates
the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment; issuance of a writ of habeas corpus
ordering Respondents to release him from custody or set a bond hearing for him pursuant
to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a); an order enjoining his removal or transfer out of the District of
Minnesota during the pendency of this case; and an award of attorneys’ fees and costs. Pet.
at 24.
Respondents argue that the petition fails on the merits as a matter of statutory
interpretation.2 ECF No. 5 at 3–8. Courts in this District have repeatedly considered and
rejected Respondents’ argument, and it will be rejected here as well.
2 	Respondents do not challenge this Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction to consider
Edy’s petition. See ECF No. 5. Nonetheless, 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-00065-ECT-SGE Doc. 8 Filed 01/13/26 Page 3 of 5

4
Edy 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.
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 January 10, 2026,
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., --- F.4th ---, No. 25-3050,
2025 WL 3552514, at *8–10 (7th Cir. Dec. 11, 2025). Edy has lived in the United States
for over six years. His detention falls under § 1226 and not § 1225(b)(2). See ECF No. 1-1
at 1 (stating that Edy is an “alien present in the United States who has not been admitted
or paroled”).
CASE 0:26-cv-00065-ECT-SGE Doc. 8 Filed 01/13/26 Page 4 of 5

5
For these reasons, Edy is subject to discretionary detention and entitled to a bond
hearing.3
ORDER
Therefore, based on the foregoing, and on all the files, records, and proceedings
herein, IT IS ORDERED THAT Petitioner Edy L.’s Verified Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus [ECF No. 1] is GRANTED as follows:
1. 	The Court DECLARES that 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 13, 2026 	s/ Eric C. Tostrud
Eric C. Tostrud
United States District Court
3 	Though Edy alternatively requests release, see Pet. at 24, that will not be granted.
Edy’s regulatory arguments will not be addressed.
CASE 0:26-cv-00065-ECT-SGE Doc. 8 Filed 01/13/26 Page 5 of 5