Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Jose G.,
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.
No. 26-cv-0545 (SRN/LIB)
ORDER
David L. Wilson, Wilson Law Group, 3019 Minnehaha Ave., Minneapolis, MN 55406,
for Petitioner
Ana Voss and Liles Harvey Repp, U.S. Attorney’s Office, 300 S. 4th St., Minneapolis,
MN 55415, for Respondents
SUSAN RICHARD NELSON, United States District Judge
Before the Court is the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”) [Doc. No.
1] filed by Petitioner Jose G. 	Petitioner seeks immediate release from detention, or a
prompt bond hearing in Immigration Court. 	Respondents oppose the Petition. (Resp’ts’
Opp’n [Doc. No. 4].)
CASE 0:26-cv-00545-SRN-LIB Doc. 6 Filed 01/27/26 Page 1 of 7

2
The Court has taken the Petition under advisement on the papers. For the reasons
set forth below, the Petition is granted and Respondents shall release Petitioner, subject to
any conditions in his prior order of supervision.
I. 	BACKGROUND
Petitioner is a citizen of Mexico.1 (Pet. ¶ 38.) He entered the United States without
inspection for the first time more than five years ago. (Id. ¶ 39.) He is currently in removal
proceedings, has filed an application for relief, and is awaiting a hearing date before the
Immigration Court. 	(Id. ¶ 40.) 	Respondents previously released him under an order of
supervision. (Id. ¶ 42.)
Respondents detained Petitioner on January 16, 2026, when he appeared for a
regular immigration check-in. (Id. ¶¶ 42, 44.) Petitioner alleges that Respondents detained
him without a judicial search warrant, judicial arrest warrant, or administrative warrant of
arrest. 	(Id. ¶ 45.) 	Respondents are detaining Petitioner in ICE custody at the Sherburne
County Jail in Elk River, Minnesota. (Id. ¶ 48.)
After his arrest, Petitioner filed the instant Petition, asserting that he is entitled to
immediate release, or, in the alternative, a bond hearing. (Pet. ¶¶ 38–119; Reply [Doc. No.
5] at 9.) 	Petitioner also requested that the Court issue an order to show cause enjoining
1 The “Parties” section of the Petition identifies Petitioner as a citizen of Honduras (Pet. ¶
22), while the “Factual Allegations & Procedural History” section identifies him as a
citizen of Mexico (id. ¶ 38). The Court assumes the reference to Mexico is correct because
other Petitioner-specific facts are found in the “Factual Allegations & Procedural History”
section. In any event, it is undisputed that Petitioner is not a U.S. citizen.
CASE 0:26-cv-00545-SRN-LIB Doc. 6 Filed 01/27/26 Page 2 of 7

3
Respondents from moving him outside of this District pending adjudication of his Petition.
(Id. at 29–30.)
In the Court’s Order to Show Cause, the Court enjoined Respondents from moving
Petitioner out of Minnesota until further order of the court. (OSC [Doc. No. 3] ¶ 4.) The
Court also ordered Respondents to show cause for the “true cause and proper duration of
Petitioner’s confinement,” and directed Respondents to address “[w]hether the absence of
a warrant preceding Petitioner’s arrest necessitates Petitioner’s immediate release.” (Id. ¶¶
1, 2(e).)
Respondents contend that Petitioner is subject to mandatory detention under 8
U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) and is therefore not entitled to release. 	Their position is consistent
with new interim guidance from the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”)/ICE, and
a recent decision from the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) finding that all persons
who enter the United States without inspection, including those who have been residing
here for some time, are “applicants for admission” under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(a), subject to
mandatory detention, rather than discretionary detention under § 1226(a). 	Maldonado v.
Olson, 795 F. Supp. 3d 1134, 1150 (D. Minn. 2025) (noting interim guidance); Matter of
Yajure Hurtado, 29 I. & N. Dec. 216 (BIA 2025). Respondents invoke their prior positions,
as set forth in Avila v. Bondi, No. 25-3248 (8th Cir. Nov. 10, 2025), currently pending
before the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. 	(Resp’ts’ Opp’n at 1–2.) It is their position
that as a matter of statutory interpretation, Petitioner falls under the provisions of 8 U.S.C.
§ 1225, not § 1226, and therefore, is not entitled to release. They concede that the instant
Petition raises legal and factual issues similar to those in prior habeas petitions this Court
CASE 0:26-cv-00545-SRN-LIB Doc. 6 Filed 01/27/26 Page 3 of 7

4
has decided.2 	(Id.) 	As the question of whether the absence of a warrant preceding
Petitioner’s arrest necessitates his release, Respondents state,
ICE has not provided the undersigned with information to confirm the
presence or absence of a warrant. 	8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(2) permits arrests by
immigration officers without a warrant in certain circumstances. Federal
Respondents maintain that, as Petitioner is mandatorily detained under 8
U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2), immediate release is not appropriate.
(Resp’ts’ Opp’n at 2–3.)
II. 	DISCUSSION
While the parties dispute whether 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) or § 1226(a) of the INA
applies to a noncitizen who is already residing in the United States, there is no dispute that
Petitioner was arrested while already residing in the United States.
This Court has previously found, along with the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals—
the only circuit court to have addressed the issue—and the vast majority of district courts
throughout the country, that the applicable detention scheme for noncitizens already
residing in the country is under § 1226(a), absent any exceptions under § 1226(c).
2 	Respondents 	do 	not 	challenge 	subject 	matter 	jurisdiction 	or 	administrative
exhaustion. Nevertheless, the Court briefly addresses these issues. As to jurisdiction, the
Court finds that none of the jurisdiction-stripping provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1252 apply to
the question of whether mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2) or discretionary detention
under § 1226(a) applies. See Maldonado v. Olson, 795 F. Supp. 3d 1134 (D. Minn. 2025).
As to exhaustion, requiring administrative 	exhaustion would be futile in light of
Hurtado. See Ortiz v. Freden, --- F. Supp. 3d ---, No. 25-CV-960-LJV, 2025 WL 3085032,
at *5 (W.D.N.Y. Nov. 4. 2025) (finding exhaustion of remedies would be futile, even if
petitioner had not exhausted his remedies). Immigration judges would be obliged to follow
Hurtado’s ruling on the scope of § 1225(b)(2)(A).
CASE 0:26-cv-00545-SRN-LIB Doc. 6 Filed 01/27/26 Page 4 of 7

5
Maldonado v. Olson, 795 F. Supp. 3d 1134 (D. Minn. 2025), E.M. v. Noem, No. 25-cv-
3975 (SRN/DTS), 2025 WL 3157839 (D. Minn. Nov. 12, 2025); Castañon-Nava v. U.S.
Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 161 F.4th 1048, 1060–62 (7th Cir. 2025); see also Demirel v. Fed.
Detention Ctr., No. 25-5488, 2025 WL 3218243, at *4 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 18, 2025) (collecting
cases); Reyes v. Raycraft, No. 25-12546, 2025 WL 2609425, at *6–7 (E. D. Mich. Sept. 9,
2024) (collecting cases); Yulexi T. v. Noem, No. 26-cv-68 (ECT/DTS), 2026 WL 77022, at
*2 (D. Minn. Jan. 10, 2026); Kelvin N. v. Bondi, No. 26-CV-32 (JMB/JFD), 2026 WL
63423, at *2–3 (D. Minn. Jan. 8, 2026); Iishaar-Abdi v. Klang, No. 25-CV-4686
(JRT/DTS), 2025 WL 3764853, at *1 (D. Minn. Dec. 30, 2025); Awaale v. Noem, No. 25-
cv-4551 (MJD/JFD), 2025 WL 3754012, at *1 (D. Minn. Dec. 29, 2025); Hugo v. Olson,
No. 25-cv-4593 (LMP/DTS), 2025 WL 3688074, at *2–3 (D. Minn. Dec. 19, 2025); Lionel
V.F. v. Bondi, No. 25-cv-4474 (PJS/LIB), 2025 WL 3485600, at *1 (D. Minn. Dec. 4,
2025). 	By contrast, § 1225(b)(2) applies to noncitizens at or near the border. 	Ortiz v.
Freden, --- F. Supp. 3d ---, No. 25-CV-960-LJV, 2025 WL 3085032, at *10 (W.D.N.Y.
Nov. 4. 2025). Respondents do not assert that any of the exceptions under § 1226(c) apply.
The 	Court 	remains 	unpersuaded 	by 	Respondents’ 	statutory 	interpretation 	of 	§§
1225(b)(2)(A), but notes that Respondents’ arguments are preserved for appeal.
Having determined that § 1225(b) is 	inapplicable to 	Petitioner, 	who would
otherwise fall under § 1226(a), the Court turns to the appropriate remedy. Section 1226(a)
provides that “[o]n a warrant issued by the Attorney General, an alien may be arrested and
detained pending a decision on whether the alien is to be removed from the United States.”
8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) (emphasis added). The statute requires the issuance of a warrant as a
CASE 0:26-cv-00545-SRN-LIB Doc. 6 Filed 01/27/26 Page 5 of 7

6
precursor to detention under § 1226(a). Ahmed M. v. Bondi, No. 25-cv-4711 (ECT/SGE),
2026 WL 25627, at *3 (D. Minn. Jan. 5, 2026) (citing Chogllo Chafla v. Scott, --- F. Supp.
3d ---, 2025 WL 2688541, at *11 (D. Me. Sept. 21, 2025), appeal filed (Nov. 6, 2025);
J.A.C.P. v. Wofford, No. 1:25-cv-01354-KES-SKO (HC), 2025 WL 3013328, at *8 (E.D.
Cal. Oct. 27, 2025)). “[I]t follows that absent a warrant a noncitizen may not be arrested
and detained under section 1226(a).” Chogllo Chafla, 2025 WL 2688541, at *11 (emphasis
in original).
Petitioner alleges that he was arrested and detained without a warrant and he
requests immediate release. 	(Pet. ¶¶ 1, 45.) 	Respondents have failed to provide their
counsel with the requested information to confirm the presence or absence of a warrant
supporting Petitioner’s detention. (Resp’ts’ Opp’n at 3.) Petitioner’s arrest and detention
are therefore unauthorized.
As other judges in this District have found, the appropriate remedy for detention
that lacks a proper statutory basis under § 1226(a) is release. Ahmed M., 2026 WL 25627,
at *3 (finding release the appropriate remedy where Respondents did not produce a
warrant); Juan S.R. v. Bondi, No. 26-cv-0005 (PJS/LIB) (D. Minn. Jan. 12, 2026) [Doc.
No. 8 at 3–4] (following the reasoning of Ahmed M. and ordering immediate release where
Respondents failed to present evidence of a warrant); Vedat C. v. Bondi, No. 25-cv-4642
(JWB/DTS) (D. Minn. Dec. 19, 2025) [Doc. No. 9] at 6] (“[A] bond hearing presupposes
lawful detention authority under § 1226. 	Where that authority has not been invoked or
established, ordering a bond hearing would treat the absence of statutory power as a mere
procedural irregularity rather than a substantive defect.”). “Habeas relief . . . addresses the
CASE 0:26-cv-00545-SRN-LIB Doc. 6 Filed 01/27/26 Page 6 of 7

7
lawfulness of custody itself,” and “[f]or detention that lacks a lawful predicate, release is
an available and appropriate remedy.” Vedat C., No. 25-cv-4642 (JWB/DTS) (D. Minn.
Dec. 19, 2025) [Doc. No. 9] at 6]. Accordingly, Respondents shall release Petitioner from
custody.
Accordingly, the Court grants Petitioner’s request for release, as set forth below.
III. 	ORDER
Based on the submissions and the entire file and proceedings herein, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED that
1. 	Petitioner Jose G.’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus [Doc. No. 1] is
GRANTED, as follows:
2. 	Respondents shall release Petitioner from custody immediately, but no later than
within 48 hours, subject to any previously imposed conditions of release.
3. 	Respondents shall confirm Petitioner’s release within 48 hours from the date of
this Order.
4. 	Respondents may not re-detain Petitioner under a statutory theory this Court has
rejected in this proceeding absent materially changed circumstances.
Dated: January 27, 2026 	s/Susan Richard Nelson
SUSAN RICHARD NELSON
United States District Judge
CASE 0:26-cv-00545-SRN-LIB Doc. 6 Filed 01/27/26 Page 7 of 7