Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Victor S.M.,
Petitioner,
v.
Kristi Noem, Secretary, U.S. Department of
Homeland Security; Peter B. Berg, Field
Office Director Enforcement and Removal
Operations; Executive Office for
Immigration Review; Pamela Bondi, U.S.
Attorney General; and U.S. Department of
Homeland Security,
Respondents.
Civil No. 26-400 (DWF/EMB)
MEMORANDUM
OPINION AND ORDER
INTRODUCTION
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Victor S.M.’s petition for a writ of
habeas corpus alleging that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution and laws of
the United States (the “Petition”). (Doc. No. 1.) Respondents oppose. (Doc. No. 5.) For
the reasons set forth below, the Court grants the Petition and orders Respondents to
provide Petitioner with a bond hearing within seven days of the date of this Order.
BACKGROUND
Petitioner is a Mexican national who entered the United States without inspection
in 2001. (Doc. No. 1 ¶¶ 1, 6.) He does not have lawful status in the United States. (Id.
¶ 6.) He is the widow of a U.S. citizen and the father of four minor children who are U.S.
citizens. (Id. ¶ 1.)
CASE 0:26-cv-00400-DWF-EMB Doc. 7 Filed 01/21/26 Page 1 of 6

2
In June 2012, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) issued a Notice
to Appear to place Petitioner into removal proceedings. (Id. ¶ 7.) DHS charged
Petitioner as being inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i). (Id.) At that time,
DHS did not allege that Petitioner was an “arriving alien.” (Id. ¶ 7; see also id. ¶ 36
(alleging that Petitioner was detained under § 1226(a).) Petitioner was subsequently
released on a bond of $3,000. (Id. ¶ 8.)
On January 17, 2026, at approximately 7:45 a.m., Petitioner was detained by U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”). (Id. ¶ 1.) He was not subject to an
Order of Removal at the time of his detainment. (Id.) He is currently in ICE custody and
being held at the Freeborn County Jail in Albert Lea, Minnesota. (Doc. No. 6 at 6.) DHS
did not serve Petitioner with a pre-deprivation notice and has not given him an
opportunity to challenge the revocation of the 2012 conditions of release. (Doc. No. 1
¶ 41.) Petitioner has not received a bond redetermination hearing. (Id. ¶ 2.)
At the time of his detainment, Petitioner was the beneficiary of an approved I-130
Visa petition filed by his late wife. (Id. ¶ 9.) Petitioner also had a pending I-601A,
which would allow him to depart the country and obtain an immigrant visa through
consular processing. (Id.)
Petitioner filed the Petition on January 17, 2026. (Id. at 9.) Petitioner asserts that
he is entitled to consideration for release on bond and that his detention violates his due
process rights. (Id. ¶¶ 29, 35, 43.) He requests (1) an order prohibiting Respondents
from moving him from this District during the pendency of the Petition, (2) release from
detention or an order requiring Respondents to provide him with a bond hearing within
CASE 0:26-cv-00400-DWF-EMB Doc. 7 Filed 01/21/26 Page 2 of 6

3
seven days, and (3) an award of attorneys’ fees and costs. (Id. at 8-9.) On January 17,
2026, the Court ordered Respondents to answer the petition on or before January 20,
2026, at 12:00 p.m. CT, and enjoined Respondents from moving Petitioner from this
District pending further order. (Doc. No. 4.) Respondents timely filed a response,
arguing that Petitioner is subject to mandatory detention.1 (Doc. No. 5.)
DISCUSSION
I. 	Legal Standard
A district court may provide habeas relief to a person who is being detained in
violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). That
authority includes jurisdiction to hear habeas challenges to immigration-related detention.
Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 687 (2001); Deng Chol A. v. Barr, 455 F. Supp. 3d 896,
900-01 (D. Minn. 2020). The burden is on the petitioner to prove illegal detention by a
preponderance of the evidence. See Mohammed H. v. Trump, 786 F. Supp. 3d 1149,
1154 (D. Minn. 2025).
II. 	Analysis
Within federal immigration law, two statutes govern the detention of noncitizens
pending removal proceedings—8 U.S.C. §§ 1225 and 1226. Section 1225 applies to
1 	Respondents did not make any arguments specific to Petitioner. (See Doc. No. 5.)
Instead, Respondents referred the Court to arguments before the Eighth Circuit in Avila v.
Bondi, No. 25-3248. In Avila, the Government is appealing a district court’s decision that
a petitioner was not subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A) but instead
entitled to a bond hearing under § 1226(a). See Appellant Br., Avila, No. 25-3248
(8th Cir. Dec. 12, 2025).
CASE 0:26-cv-00400-DWF-EMB Doc. 7 Filed 01/21/26 Page 3 of 6

4
“applicants for admission”—noncitizens who are either “present in the United States who
ha[ve] not been admitted” or who “arrive[] in the United States.” 8 U.S.C. § 1225(a)(1).
Under that section, “if the examining immigration officer determines that [a noncitizen]
seeking admission is not clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted,” the
noncitizen must be detained during the pendency of their removal proceedings. Id.
§ 1225(b)(2)(A). Section 1226 applies where § 1225 is inapplicable and provides
immigration judges with the discretion to grant release on bond to noncitizens subject to
removal proceedings. See id. § 1226(a).
Respondents argue that Petitioner is an “applicant for admission” because he was
never lawfully admitted to the United States and is therefore still “seeking admission.”
But the plain language of the statute dictates otherwise. Petitioner has been in the United
States for 25 years. He is not “seeking admission”—he is already here. See Jennings v.
Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281, 289 (2018) (noting that § 1226(a) applies to “certain aliens
already in the country”). Petitioner is therefore subject to the discretionary bond
provisions of § 1226(a), not the mandatory bond provisions of § 1225(b)(2). This
outcome is bolstered by DHS’s own determination that Petitioner was subject to § 1226
and allowed bond in 2012.
With this holding, the Court joins the chorus of compelling opinions from
throughout the country holding that § 1225(b) does not apply to noncitizens already
present in the country. E.g., Santos M.C. v. Olson, No. 25-cv-4264, 2025 WL 3281787,
at *2 n.3 (D. Minn. Nov. 25, 2025) (collecting cases). Respondents’ arguments to the
contrary have been repeatedly considered and rejected. See, e.g., E.M. v. Noem,
CASE 0:26-cv-00400-DWF-EMB Doc. 7 Filed 01/21/26 Page 4 of 6

5
No. 25-cv-3975, 2025 WL 3157839, at *4-8 (D. Minn. Nov. 12, 2025) (discussing the
plain meaning of the statutes, canons of statutory interpretation, prior agency practice,
and legislative history, and concluding that each supports the conclusion that § 1226(a)
applies to noncitizens already present in the country).
Respondents must provide a bond redetermination hearing to Petitioner within
seven days of this Order. Failing that, any continued detention would be unlawful, and
Petitioner’s immediate release would be required.
CONCLUSION
Petitioner is not subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2) but to the
discretionary provisions of § 1226(a). He is therefore entitled to a bond redetermination
hearing, which the Court orders Respondents to provide within seven days. If Petitioner
is not given a bond redetermination hearing within that timeframe, he must be
immediately released from detention.
ORDER
Based upon the foregoing and the record in this case, IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED that:
1. 	Petitioner’s writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. [1]) is GRANTED.
a. 	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(a).
CASE 0:26-cv-00400-DWF-EMB Doc. 7 Filed 01/21/26 Page 5 of 6

6
b. 	Respondents are ordered to provide Petitioner with a bond
redetermination hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within seven (7) days of the date
of this Order.
c. 	If the Government does not provide Petitioner with a bond
redetermination hearing as required by this Order, Petitioner must be immediately
released from detention.
d. 	Within ten (10) days of the date of this Order, Respondents shall
provide the Court with a status update concerning the results of any bond hearing
conducted pursuant to this Order, or if no bond hearing was held, advise the Court
regarding Petitioner’s release.
2. 	Respondents, or anyone acting in concert with Respondents, are
ENJOINED from removing, transferring, or otherwise facilitating the removal of
Petitioner from the District of Minnesota prior to the ordered bond hearing.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: January 21, 2026 	s/Donovan W. Frank
DONOVAN W. FRANK
United States District Judge
CASE 0:26-cv-00400-DWF-EMB Doc. 7 Filed 01/21/26 Page 6 of 6