Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Ramiro M. R.,
Petitioner,
v.
Pamela Bondi, et al.,
Respondents.
No. 26-cv-1178 (KMM/DJF)
ORDER
Petitioner Ramiro M. R. (“Ramiro” or “Petitioner”) seeks a writ of habeas corpus
under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Dkt. 1.) For the reasons that follow, the petition is granted.
Background
Respondents provide no evidence to dispute the facts asserted in the petition.
(Dkt. 5.) Ramiro is a citizen of Mexico. (Dkt. 1 ¶ 12.) He has lived in the United States
since August 2000 and has no serious criminal history. (Id. ¶¶ 12, 15.) He has two children
who are U.S. citizens and has strong ties to the community. (Id. ¶ 13.)
On December 24, 2025, Petitioner was arrested by the Bloomington Police
Department, and he was transferred to the custody of U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (“ICE”) two days later. (Id. ¶ 16.) Initially, he was detained at Sherburne
County Jail, but at the time the petition was filed, he was being held at the Bishop Henry
Whipple Federal Building in Fort Snelling, Minnesota. (Id.) Ramiro filed his petition on
February 6, 2026, and Respondents filed their answer to the petition on February 9, 2026.
CASE 0:26-cv-01178-KMM-DJF Doc. 6 Filed 02/09/26 Page 1 of 4

2
Analysis
This case is one of many filed in recent months in this district challenging the
application of § 1225(b)(2) to aliens who are already in the United States, either having
entered without inspection or having been previously released pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226
or another statute. This Court has previously held that, because such people are not
“seeking admission,” as set forth in § 1225(b)(2), that provision—which mandates
detention—does not apply to them. See, e.g., Belsai D.S. v. Bondi, No. 25-cv-03682
(KMM/EMB), 2025 WL 2802947 (D. Minn. Oct. 1, 2025). The majority of courts to have
considered these issues have reached the same conclusion. Additionally, although the Fifth
Circuit just agreed with Respondents’ reading of § 1225(b)(2), the Seventh Circuit has
reached a different conclusion. Compare Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, No. 25-20496, 2026
WL 323330, at *4-10 (5th Cir. Feb. 6, 2026), with Castanon-Nava v. DHS, 161 F.4th 1048,
1061 (7th Cir. 2025). The Respondents’ position is that the cases representing the majority
view were wrongly decided, and they point out correctly, that other courts, including the
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, have ruled differently, and that the issue is currently pending
before the Eighth Circuit in Avila v. Bondi, No. 25-3248 (8th Cir. docketed Nov. 10, 2025).
However, Respondents acknowledge that this Court has rejected their position in prior
cases, and they wish to preserve their arguments for any appeal. (Dkt. 5.)
Although the Court has considered the arguments raised by the government, and
reviewed the authority cited, the Court declines to repudiate its analysis from Belsai D.S.
and instead continues to follow the analysis of the majority of courts to have considered
the matter. Of course, these issues are complex, and the government’s arguments are not
CASE 0:26-cv-01178-KMM-DJF Doc. 6 Filed 02/09/26 Page 2 of 4

3
frivolous. But the Court continues to believe that the better reading of the relevant statutory
scheme is that § 1225(b)(2) does not apply to Ramiro or others who are similarly situated,
and his mandatory detention under that provision is not supported by the law.
Petitioner alleges that he should be immediately released. The Court agrees.
“Section 1226 provides that ‘[o]n a warrant issued by the Attorney General, an alien may
be arrested and detained.’” Ahmed M. v. Bondi et. Al, No. 25-cv-4711 (ECT/SGE), 2026
WL 25627, at *2 (D. Minn. Jan. 5, 2026). Respondents have not claimed to have a “warrant
issued by the Attorney General” supporting Ramiro’s recent arrest, nor have Respondents
produced one to the Court. As explained in Ahmed M., the issuance of a warrant is a
prerequisite to even discretionary detention under § 1226(a). Id. (citing cases). Because
Respondents have not produced any warrant, the Court finds the appropriate remedy is
immediate release. See id., 2026 WL 25627, at *3; see also Juan S.R. v. Bondi, 26-cv-05
(PJS/LIB) (Order, Dkt. 8, Jan. 12, 2026) (same).
ORDER
Based on the above, and on the full record before the Court, IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED THAT:
1. Petitioner Ramiro M. R.’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (Dkt. 1) is
GRANTED.
2. The Court DECLARES that Ramiro M. R. is not subject to mandatory detention
under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) and ENJOINS Respondents from denying release or
other relief on the basis that he is subject to such mandatory detention.
3. The Court ORDERS Respondents to immediately release Ramiro M. R. in
Minnesota, with all of his personal effects seized during his arrest, including but
not limited to immigration paperwork, and without new conditions.
CASE 0:26-cv-01178-KMM-DJF Doc. 6 Filed 02/09/26 Page 3 of 4

4
4. Further, the Court ORDERS Respondents file a notice on ECF by no later than
8:00 PM on February 10, 2026 certifying Petitioner’s release. The notice shall
specify the date, time, and location of his release. If Ramiro M. R. has not been
released by that time, then Respondents shall advise the Court about the reasons his
release has not occurred, and the specific steps Respondents are undertaking to
ensure his immediate release in Minnesota.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Date: February 9, 2026
s/Katherine Menendez
Katherine Menendez
United States District Judge
CASE 0:26-cv-01178-KMM-DJF Doc. 6 Filed 02/09/26 Page 4 of 4