Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
JOANA J.,1
Petitioner,
v.
PAMELA JO BONDI, KRISTI NOEM,
TODD LYONS, DAVID
EASTERWOOD, AND ERIC
TOLLEFSON, IN THEIR OFFICIAL
CAPACITIES,
Respondents.
Case No. 26-CV-892 (MJD/JFD)
REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION
Petitioner Joana J. has filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2241 (Dkt. No. 1). The petition has been referred to the undersigned for the
issuance of a report and recommendation.
Petitioner is a citizen of Haiti, who entered the United States on or about May 25,
2024, after being granted Haitian Humanitarian Parole (“HHP”). (Pet. ¶¶ 1, 15.) Her HHP
status expired on June 12, 2025. (Id. ¶ 4.) Petitioner filed an I-589 Application for Asylum
and for Withholding of Removal on August 12, 2025, and her asylum application remains
pending. (Id. ¶ 1.) Petitioner was issued a Notice to Appear and placed in full removal
1 This District has adopted a policy of using only the first name and last initial of any
nongovernmental parties in immigration cases.
CASE 0:26-cv-00892-MJD-JFD Doc. 6 Filed 02/04/26 Page 1 of 5

2
proceedings on November 20, 2025, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1229a. (Id. ¶ 5.) She has been
detained at the Kandiyohi County Jail since November 20, 2025. (Id. ¶ 15.)
According to the petition, Respondents have deemed Petitioner an “applicant for
admission” to the United States and therefore subject to the mandatory detention provisions
of 8 U.S.C. § 1225. (Id. ¶ 6.) Petitioner points out that she entered the United States more
than a year-and-a-half ago, on HHP that was approved before she entered, and thus she is
not an “applicant for admission.” (Id. ¶ 5.) Rather, Petitioner contends, she is detained
pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), which allows for release on conditional parole or bond. (Id.
¶ 8.) Through her habeas petition, she asks for release or a custody redetermination hearing
pursuant to § 1226. (Id. ¶ 10.)
The Federal Respondents oppose the petition. (Dkt. No. 4.) In doing so, however,
they confusingly refer to Petitioner (who identifies herself as a woman in the petition) as
“he” and describe Petitioner as “a noncitizen who was [sic] presented himself at the border
in April 2023,” not a noncitizen who entered the United States on HHP in May 2024. (See
Fed. Resp’ts’ Resp. at 1, Dkt. No. 4.) The Federal Respondents’ description of Petitioner
and her entry into the United States is not consistent with the petition or the exhibits
attached to the petition. Respondents also refer to a “Fuller Declaration” (id. at 4), but no
such declaration was filed, nor did Respondents file any exhibits in support of their
opposition. Respondents’ legal argument is that Petitioner’s detention falls under the
mandatory detention provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1)(B)(ii) because she is an “arriving
alien” and subject to expedited removal proceedings. (Fed. Resp’ts’ Resp. at 1–2.)
Respondents also cite Chen v. Almodovar, No. 1:25-CV-8350-MKV, 2025 WL 3484855,
CASE 0:26-cv-00892-MJD-JFD Doc. 6 Filed 02/04/26 Page 2 of 5

3
at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 4, 2025), for the proposition that Petitioner’s pending asylum
application equates to “seeking admission” to the United States. (Fed. Resp’ts’ Resp. at 6.)
The Court clearly has concerns about the discrepancies between the facts as
presented by Petitioner and the Federal Respondents’ memorandum. The lack of a
declaration or any exhibits from the Federal Respondents only adds to the concerns.
Nonetheless, the Court has enough facts before it to recommend a disposition of the
petition, and in the interest of expediency will proceed on the present record.
Section 1225(b)(1)(B)(ii)—the statute that Respondents say applies here—requires
the detention of a noncitizen “arriving in the United States” who has an asylum interview
and who is determined to have a credible fear of persecution. There is nothing in the record
indicating that Petitioner had an asylum interview or that a credible-fear-of-persecution
determination was made. Nor is Petitioner a noncitizen “arriving in the United States.”
Petitioner arrived in the United States more than a year-and-a-half ago, on or about May
25, 2024. Respondents have not established that Petitioner’s detention is governed by
§ 1225(b)(1)(B)(ii).
Petitioner’s application for asylum did not place her in the position of an arriving
noncitizen or a noncitizen applying for admission. See Mahamed C.A. v. Noem, No. 25-
CV-4551 (MJD/JFD), 2025 WL 3771299, at *3 (D. Minn. Dec. 16, 2025), R. & R. adopted
sub nom. Awaale v. Noem, 2025 WL 3754012 (D. Minn. Dec. 29, 2025). Both the
undersigned magistrate judge and the district judge assigned to this case have already
declined to follow Chen, the case cited by Respondents. See Mahamed C.A., 2025 WL
3771299, at *3; Awaale, 2025 WL 3754012, at *2. By applying for asylum, Petitioner did
CASE 0:26-cv-00892-MJD-JFD Doc. 6 Filed 02/04/26 Page 3 of 5

4
not put herself in the place of an “arriving alien” or a noncitizen “seeking admission.” See
Mahamed C.A., 2025 WL 3771299, at *3; Awaale, 2025 WL 3754012, at *1; see also
Misael T. v. Bondi, No. 26-CV-263 (ECT/EMB), 2026 WL 146510, at *2 (D. Minn. Jan.
20, 2026); Mayamu K. v. Bondi, No. 25-3035 (JWB/LIB), 2025 WL 3641819, at *4 (D.
Minn. Oct. 20, 2025).
Accordingly, for the above reasons, the Court concludes that Petitioner’s detention
does not fall under § 1225(b)(1)(B)(ii). To the extent Respondents have suggested that
Petitioner’s detention falls under § 1225(b)(2), the Court disagrees for the reasons
expressed in Beltran v. Bondi, No. 25-04604 (MJD/DTS), 2025 WL 3719856, at *1 (D.
Minn. Dec. 23, 2025). Petitioner is not an “applicant for admission” or “seeking
admission.”
That leaves § 1226 as a possible basis for Petitioner’s detention. Section 1226(a)
provides that “[o]n a warrant issued by the Attorney General, an alien may be arrested and
detained.” The “[i]ssuance of a warrant is a necessary condition to justify discretionary
detention under section 1226(a).” Cristian Z. v. Bondi, No. 26-CV-157 (ECT/ECW), 2026
WL 123116, at *2 (D. Minn. Jan. 16, 2026) (quotation omitted). Without a warrant, “a
noncitizen may not be arrested and detained under section 1226(a).” Id. (cleaned up).
Petitioner contends no warrant was issued, and Respondents have not argued or shown
otherwise. Accordingly, Respondents have not identified a valid statutory basis for
detention, and the Court recommends immediate release. See Edwin C.R. v. Bondi, No. 26-
355 (MJD/JFD), 2026 WL 185068, at *2 (D. Minn. Jan. 25, 2026). The parties’ attention
is directed to the shorter than usual deadlines for filing objections to this Report and
CASE 0:26-cv-00892-MJD-JFD Doc. 6 Filed 02/04/26 Page 4 of 5

5
Recommendation and for filing responses to those objections, set forth in the “Notice”
below.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:
1. Petitioner 	Joana 	J.’s 	Petition 	for 	Writ 	of 	Habeas 	Corpus 	(Dkt. 	No. 	1) 	be
GRANTED;
2. Respondents be ordered to immediately release Petitioner Joana J. from custody;
and
3. Respondents be ordered to file a notice confirming such release within 24 hours of
the date of any order adopting this Report and Recommendation.
Dated: February 4, 2026 	s/ John F. Docherty
JOHN F. DOCHERTY
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 D. Minn. LR 72.2(b)(1), “[a] party may file and serve specific written
objections to a magistrate judge’s proposed findings and recommendations within 14 days
after being served with a copy of the recommended disposition, unless the court sets a
different deadline.” (Emphasis added.) The Court modifies the deadline such that
objections are due on or before February 6, 2026. Responses to objections are due on
or before February 9, 2026. All objections and responses must comply with the word or
line limits set forth in Local Rule 72.2(c).
CASE 0:26-cv-00892-MJD-JFD Doc. 6 Filed 02/04/26 Page 5 of 5