Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Yulexi T.,
Petitioner,
v.
Kristi Noem, in her official capacity as
Secretary of the Department of Homeland
Security; Todd Lyons, in his official capacity
as Acting Director of United States
Immigration and Customs Enforcement; and
David Easterwood, in his official capacity as
Acting Director, St. Paul Field Office, U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement,
Respondents.
File No. 26-cv-68 (ECT/DTS)
OPINION AND ORDER
________________________________________________________________________
Sara Larson Glesne and Graham Blair Ojala-Barbour, Ojala-Barbour Law Firm, St. Paul,
MN, for Petitioner Yulexi T.
Ana H. Voss and Justin Merak Page, United States Attorney’s Office, Minneapolis, MN,
for Respondents Kristi Noem, Todd Lyons, and David Easterwood.
Petitioner Yulexi T. is an Ecuadoran citizen who has lived in the United States
without authorization since 2021,1 when she entered the country without inspection. See
1 	Yulexi’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus alleges that she has “resided in the
United States since approximately June 29, 2021.” 	See Pet. ¶ 44. This squares with the
Government’s exhibits. See ECF No. 11 ¶ 7; ECF No. 11-1 (stating Yulexi’s “family unit
was encountered by Border Patrol Agents in Eagle Pass, Texas,” on “June 29, 2021”). But
other parts of Yulexi’s Petition present a conflicting account, alleging that Yulexi “entered
the U.S. 18 years ago,” or implying that Yulexi was here for “almost two decades” before
being apprehended. See Pet. ¶¶ 41–42. These statements appear to be typographical errors.
CASE 0:26-cv-00068-ECT-DTS Doc. 12 Filed 01/10/26 Page 1 of 5

2
Pet. [ECF No. 1] ¶¶ 3, 43–44; ECF No. 11 ¶ 7; ECF No. 11-1. On or about January 15,
2022, Deportation Officers served Yulexi with a Form I-862 Notice to Appear, charging
her as subject to removal under Section 212(a)(6)(A)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality
Act (codified under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i)) as “an alien present in the United States
without being admitted or paroled, or who arrived in the United States at any time or place
other than as designated by the Attorney General.” ECF No. 11-2 at 1. On April 21, 2022,
Yulexi applied for asylum.2 ECF No. 11 ¶ 9. On March 10, 2025, an immigration judge
denied Yulexi’s asylum petition and ordered her removed from the United States to
Ecuador. ECF No. 11-3. On April 9, 2025, Yulexi timely filed a Notice of Appeal with
the Board of Immigration Appeals, and that appeal remains pending. ECF No. 11 ¶ 11.
On January 6, 2026, Yulexi was arrested by an ICE officer and detained in ICE
custody at Fort Snelling in Minnesota. See Pet. ¶¶ 4, 8, 13, 45. Yulexi was “moved before
ICE learned of the petition” and is currently detained at Paso Camp East Montana in El
Paso, Texas. ECF No. 11 ¶ 12. The Government notes that Yulexi “may be a member” of
the class recently certified in Maldonado Bautista v. Santacruz, No. 5:25-CV-01873-SSS-
BFM (C.D. Cal. filed July 23, 2025), but Yulexi does not assert any entitlement to relief
based on possible class membership. See ECF No. 10 at 3 n.1; see generally, Pet.
2 	In her Fifth Amendment claim, Yulexi also asserts that “[a]t the time of her arrest,
[she] was awaiting the scheduling of her consular interview to reenter the United States
with an immigrant visa based on her marriage to a United States citizen and her approved
waiver of unlawful presence.” 	Pet. ¶ 63. 	Yulexi does not discuss this elsewhere in the
Petition, nor does she argue that any such status would result in a different legal framework
being applied here.
CASE 0:26-cv-00068-ECT-DTS Doc. 12 Filed 01/10/26 Page 2 of 5

3
Yulexi challenges her detention under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Pet. ¶¶ 8–9. She claims
she 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. ¶¶ 1, 5–7, 48–52, 55–58; see Jose J.O.E. v. Bondi, 797 F. Supp. 3d 957,
961–62 (D. Minn. 2025) (explaining legal framework). 	According to Yulexi, that
misclassification and denial of a bond hearing violate her 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. ¶¶ 48–66. 	She seeks a declaration that her detention is unlawful;
issuance of a writ of habeas corpus ordering Respondents to release her from custody or
set a bond hearing for her pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) or the Due Process Clause; an
order enjoining her 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 17.
Respondents argue that the petition fails on the merits as a matter of statutory
interpretation.3 ECF No. 5 at 3–7. Courts in this District have repeatedly considered and
rejected Respondents’ argument, and it will be rejected here as well.
Yulexi has shown she has been misclassified under § 1225(b)(2) rather than § 1226.
As courts have explained, the former statute applies to applicants “seeking admission,” and
3 	Respondents do not challenge this Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction to consider
Yulexi’s petition. See ECF No. 10. 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-00068-ECT-DTS Doc. 12 Filed 01/10/26 Page 3 of 5

4
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). Yulexi has lived in the United States
for over four years. Her detention falls under § 1226 and not § 1225(b)(2). See ECF No.
11-2 at 1 (stating that Yulexi is an “alien present in the United States who has not been
admitted or paroled, or who arrived in the United States at any time or place other than as
designated by the Attorney General”). For these reasons, Yulexi is subject to discretionary
detention and entitled to a bond hearing.4
4 	Though Yulexi alternatively requests release, see Pet. at 17, that will not be granted.
Yulexi’s regulatory arguments will not be addressed. 	Because Yulexi succeeds on her
statutory claim, the Court need not address whether she is eligible for relief based on the
CASE 0:26-cv-00068-ECT-DTS Doc. 12 Filed 01/10/26 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 Yulexi T.’s 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 10, 2026 	s/ Eric C. Tostrud
Eric C. Tostrud
United States District Court
decision in Maldonado Bautista v. Santacruz, No. 5:25-CV-01873-SSS-BFM (C.D. Cal.
filed July 23, 2025).
CASE 0:26-cv-00068-ECT-DTS Doc. 12 Filed 01/10/26 Page 5 of 5