Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
CIVIL NO. 26-CV-532 (MJD/SGE)
Ruben V.,
Petitioner,
v.
Kristi Noem, et al.,
Respondents.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Ruben V.’s 1 Petition for Habeas
Corpus (“Petition”). (Dkt. 1.) Ruben maintains that his detention violates the Immigration
and Nationality Act, his Fifth Amendment rights to due process, and the Administrative
Procedures Act. He requests a bond hearing consistent with 8 U.S.C. § 1226 and release
from federal custody. (Pet., Dkt. 1.) Respondents oppose the Petition. (Dkt. 4.) The matter
has been referred to the undersigned by United States District Judge Michael J. Davis for
report and recommendation under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72.1. For the
reasons set forth below, this Court recommends that the Petition be GRANTED.
BACKGROUND
Ruben is a citizen of Ecuador who has resided in the United States since about June
2019. (Pet. ¶¶ 44, 46.) He has been in the United States for approximately 6.5 years. Ruben
was first detained by ICE in late October 2019 and was granted a $5,000 bond on
1 Pursuant to this District’s policy in immigration cases, the Court identifies Petitioner only
by his first name and last initial.
CASE 0:26-cv-00532-MJD-SGE Doc. 6 Filed 01/28/26 Page 1 of 7

November 19, 2019. (Id. ¶ 47.) An immigration judge dismissed the removal proceedings
on July 26, 202l, and Ruben had not been arrested or otherwise violated the terms of his
previous release. (Id. ¶¶ 47-48.) Immigration officers arrested Ruben on January 21, 2026,
and he is presently held at Fort Snelling near St. Paul, Minnesota. (Id. ¶ 1.)
The Court, United States District Judge Michael J. Davis, issued an Order to Show
Cause on January 22, 2026, requiring Respondents to file an answer to the issues raised in
the Petition and enjoining Respondents from removing Ruben from the District of
Minnesota until a final decision is made in his Petition. (Dkt. 3.) Judge Davis specifically
ordered:
Respondents are directed to file an answer to the petition for a writ of
habeas corpus of petitioner Ruben V. By no later than January 24,
2026, certifying the true cause and proper duration of Petitioner’s
confinement and showing cause why the writ should not be granted in
this case.
(Id. ¶ 1.) Judge Davis further ordered:
Respondents’ answer should include:
a. Such affidavits and exhibits as are needed to establish the lawfulness
and correct duration of Petitioner’s detention in light of the issues
raised in the habeas petition;
b. A reasoned memorandum of law and fact explaining respondents’
legal position on Petitioner’s claims;
c. Respondents’ recommendation on whether an evidentiary hearing
should be conducted; and
d. Whether the absence of a warrant preceding Petitioner’s arrest
necessitates Petitioner’s immediate release.
(Id. ¶ 2.)
CASE 0:26-cv-00532-MJD-SGE Doc. 6 Filed 01/28/26 Page 2 of 7

On January 24, 2026, Respondents filed a one-page Response to the Petition. (Dkt.
4.) Respondents stated that the Petition “raises legal and factual issues similar to those in
prior habeas petitions this Court has decided” and incorporated the arguments currently on
expedited review in Avila v. Bondi, No. 25-3248 (8th Cir. docketed Nov. 10, 2025). Despite
Judge Davis’s order, Respondents failed to attach to their response any affidavits or
exhibits to justify the lawfulness of Ruben’s detention or any warrant justifying his arrest.
(See Dkt. 4.) Ruben filed a reply on January 26, 2026, noting Respondents’ failure to
produce a warrant justifying his arrest and requesting immediate release. (Dkt. 5.)
ANALYSIS
Two statutes govern the detention of noncitizens pending removal proceedings—8
U.S.C. §§ 1225 and 1226. In recent months, Respondents, have taken the position that the
mandatory detention provision in 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) applies to noncitizens, already in
the United States, that entered without inspection. By incorporating the arguments put
forward in Avila, Respondents argue that in these circumstances, noncitizens are not
entitled to a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) as a matter of statutory interpretation.
Ruben argues that he is not subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2) and is
instead subject to the discretionary framework of § 1226(a), which requires that he receive
a bond hearing. In sum, the parties’ disagreement amounts to one of statutory
interpretation: whether 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) or § 1226(a) applies to noncitizens already
residing in the United States.
CASE 0:26-cv-00532-MJD-SGE Doc. 6 Filed 01/28/26 Page 3 of 7

Respondents concede that Ruben’s claim is similar to the numerous other
immigration cases in this District2 where noncitizens, found in Minnesota and detained by
ICE, seek bond hearings pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), and in which the majority of
district judges in this district have ruled against Respondents’ interpretation of the law and
the application of 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). See E.M. v. Noem, No. 25-cv-3975 (SRN/DTS),
2025 WL 3157839 (D. Minn. Nov. 12, 2025); Santos M.C. v. Olson, No. 25-cv-4264
(PJS/DJF), 2025 WL 3281787 (D. Minn. Nov. 25, 2025); Jose J.O.E. v. Bondi, No. 25-cv-
3051 (ECT/DJF), 2025 WL 2466670 (D. Minn. Aug. 27, 2025); Andres R.E. v. Bondi, No.
25-cv-3946 (NEB/DLM), 2025 WL 3146312 (D. Minn. Nov. 4, 2025); Belsai D.S. v.
Bondi, No. 25-cv-3682 (KMM/EMB), 2025 WL 2802947 (D. Minn. Oct. 1, 2025); Eliseo
A.A. v. Olson, No. 25-cv-3381 (JWB/DJF), 2025 WL 2886729 (D. Minn. Oct. 8, 2025);
Francisco T. v. Bondi, No. 25-cv-3219 (JMB/DTS), 2025 WL 2629839 (D. Minn. Aug. 29,
2025); Roberto M. v. Olson, No. 25-cv-4456 (LMP/ECW), ECF No. 15 (D. Minn. Dec. 9,
2025); Iishaar-Abdi v. Klang, No. 25-cv-4686 (JRT/DTS), 2025 WL 3764853, at *1 (D.
Minn. Dec. 30, 2025); but see Abdirhamaan G. v. Noem et al., 26-cv-34 (PAM/SGE), Dkt.
7 (adopting Respondents’ interpretation of the statute). Indeed, Judge Davis has also
concluded that § 1226(a) governs the detention of noncitizens who are already present or
residing in the United States, such as Ruben—not § 1225(b), which governs the detention
of noncitizens seeking admission into the United States. See Awaale v. Noem, No. 25-cv-
2 See Dkt. 4 (“[T]his Petition raises legal and factual issues similar to those in prior
habeas petitions this Court has decided.”).
CASE 0:26-cv-00532-MJD-SGE Doc. 6 Filed 01/28/26 Page 4 of 7

4551 (MJD/JFD), 2025 WL 3754012, at *1 (D. Minn. Dec. 29, 2025); Mohamed A. v.
Bondi et al., 25-cv-4515 (MJD/ECW), Dkt. 17.
Beyond Minnesota, district courts across the nation and the Seventh Circuit Court
of Appeals have addressed this exact question and agreed that § 1226(a), not § 1225(b),
governs detention of noncitizens already present in the United States. See Castañon-Nava
v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 161 F.4th 1048, 1060–62 (7th Cir. 2025); Demirel v. Fed.
Detention Ctr., No. 25-cv-5488, 2025 WL 3218243, at *4 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 18, 2025)
(collecting cases); Reyes v. Raycraft, No. 25-cv-12546, 2025 WL 2609425, at *6–7 (E.D.
Mich. Sept. 9, 2024) (collecting cases).
Respondents do not assert that Ruben has any criminal history. Respondents also
fail to offer any argument that a different exception would subject Ruben to mandatory
detention under § 1226(c) or that his case is in any way distinguishable from the many
other cases in this District. Respondents merely maintain the same argument that detention
is mandatory under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b), which as discussed above, has been repeatedly
rejected. See Fuentes, 2025 WL 3524455, at * 1 (“The Government has now been told
nearly 300 times (and counting) that its mandatory-detention scheme is unlawful. Yet as
this case illustrates, the Government has not taken “no” for an answer.”) (citing Demirel,
2025 WL 3218243, at *4). The undersigned finds no reason to depart from the well-
reasoned judicial consensus in this district and across the country.
That, however, is not the end of the inquiry. Section 1226(a) provides that “[o]n a
warrant issued by the Attorney General, an alien may be arrested and detained.” In other
words, “[i]ssuance of a warrant is a necessary condition to justify discretionary detention
CASE 0:26-cv-00532-MJD-SGE Doc. 6 Filed 01/28/26 Page 5 of 7

under section 1226(a).” Cristian Z. v. Bondi, No. 26-cv-157 (ECT/ECW), 2026 WL
123116, at *2 (D. Minn. Jan. 16, 2026) (citation omitted). Because a warrant is a “necessary
condition” to justify detention under § 1226(a), “[i]t follows that absent a warrant a
noncitizen may not be arrested and detained under section 1226(a).” Id. (cleaned up);
Ahmed M. v. Bondi, No. 25-cv-4711 (ECT/SGE), 2026 WL 25627, at *3 (D. Minn. Jan. 5,
2026) (same).
Judge Davis’s Order to Show Cause gave Respondents an opportunity to
demonstrate any justification of for Ruben’s arrest. Despite this opportunity, Respondents
failed to provide a valid statutory basis for Ruben’s detention or demonstrate that the
warrant requirement of § 1226(a) had been met. “[R]elease is an available and appropriate
remedy” for “detention that lacks a lawful predicate.” Cristian Z., 2026 WL 123116, at *2
(citation omitted). “Where the record shows Respondents have not identified a valid
statutory basis for detention in the first place, the remedy is not to supply one through
further proceedings.” Id. (citations omitted). Because Respondents have failed to
demonstrate a legal justification for Ruben’s detention, this Court recommends that he be
released from custody immediately.
CASE 0:26-cv-00532-MJD-SGE Doc. 6 Filed 01/28/26 Page 6 of 7

RECOMMENDATION
Based on all the files, records, and proceedings herein, this Court hereby
RECOMMENDS that the Petition (Dkt. 1) be GRANTED, and that Ruben V. be
immediately released from detention into Minnesota.
Dated: January 28, 2026
s/Shannon G. Elkins
SHANNON G. ELKINS
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 the circumstances of this case and Local Rule 72.2(b)(1), the parties may file and
serve specific written objections to a magistrate judge’s proposed findings and
recommendations within 2 days of the filing of the Report and Recommendation without
regard to weekends or holidays. A party may respond to those objections within 2 days
after being served a copy of the objections without regard to weekends or holidays. See
Local Rule 72.2(b)(2). All objections and responses must comply with the word or line
limits set forth in Local Rule 72.2(c).
CASE 0:26-cv-00532-MJD-SGE Doc. 6 Filed 01/28/26 Page 7 of 7