Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Cesar A.S.,
Petitioner,
v.
Joel Brott, Sheriff, Sherburne County Jail,
Elk River, MN; David Easterwood, Director
of St. Paul Field Office, U.S. Immigration
and Customs Enforcement; Markwayne
Mullin, Secretary of the U.S. Department of
Homeland Security; and Todd Blanche,
Attorney General of the United States, in
their official capacities,
Respondents.
File No. 26-cv-2255 (ECT/DTS)
OPINION AND ORDER
Danielle Oxendine Molliver, Nwokocha & Operana Law Offices, Minneapolis, MN, for
Petitioner Cesar A.S.
Carl Berry and David W. Fuller, United States Attorney’s Office, Minneapolis, MN, for
Respondents David Easterwood, Markwayne Mullin, and Todd Blanche.
Petitioner Cesar A.S. is a Venezuelan citizen who has lived in the United States
since 2023, when he entered the country without inspection. 	Pet. [ECF No. 1] ¶ 15; see
ECF No. 9-1 at 1 (Cesar’s Form I-862 showing that he arrived in the country without
inspection on September 16, 2023). He was then released on recognizance. ECF No. 9-2.
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement arrested him in Lakeville, Minnesota, on
April 13, 2026. Pet. ¶ 16; ECF No. 9-3 at 2 (Form I-213); ECF No. 9-4 (Form I-200 arrest
warrant). He is detained in the Sherburne County Jail in Elk River, Minnesota. Id. ¶ 17.
CASE 0:26-cv-02255-ECT-DTS Doc. 11 Filed 04/22/26 Page 1 of 4

2
His upcoming Master Calendar Hearing before an immigration judge is scheduled for May
5, 2026, at Fort Snelling, Minnesota. Id.
Cesar challenged his detention by filing a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. Id.
¶ 5; see 28 U.S.C. § 2241. He contends that he was not “seeking admission” to the United
States but was “present in the country,” and has been incorrectly classified as subject to
mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2), rather than under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a).
Pet. ¶¶ 18. 25, 27. That misclassification, he alleges, means he was deprived of his right
to a bond hearing under § 1226(a). 	Id. ¶¶ 18, 27. 	According to Cesar, that deprivation
violated the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, id. ¶¶ 37–39, immigration statutes,
id. ¶¶ 40–43, and the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), id. ¶¶ 44–47. 	He requests
an order requiring his immediate release, or, in the alternative, an order setting a bond
hearing. 	Id. at 12. 	Cesar also seeks preliminary injunctive relief on the same grounds.
ECF No. 3 at 3–5.
The Eighth Circuit has rejected Cesar’s legal theory. It holds that noncitizens who
are “present in the United States and who ha[ve] not been admitted” are necessarily
“seeking admission,” so they are subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2). Avila
v. Bondi, 170 F.4th 1128, 1134, 1138 (8th Cir. 2026). In reply, Cesar concedes that Avila
rules out his statutory argument. ECF No. 10 at 1.
Cesar continues to press his due process claim, but this cause of action is contingent
on his §§ 1225 and 1226 argument, so it is also unsuccessful. 	He claims that his due
process rights have been violated because he is “classified as a mandatory detainee under
8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2),” Pet. ¶ 38, and his reply brief repeats these arguments, ECF No. 10
CASE 0:26-cv-02255-ECT-DTS Doc. 11 Filed 04/22/26 Page 2 of 4

3
at 4 (“It is a straightforward application of the Due Process Clause: the government may
not detain a person under a statute that does not apply to them, and civil detention must
remain reasonably related to its purpose.”). 	These arguments fail because, under Avila,
Cesar is a noncitizen seeking admission to the United States, so he may be subjected to
mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2). See Avila, 170 F.4th at 1138. In places, Cesar’s
reply brief describes other potential due-process violations. See ECF No. 10 at 2 (“[Cesar]
has been in the U.S. for years, has a pending asylum application that was timely filed, and
has a job and valid employment authorization.”). These factual statements are not in the
petition or the record. 	The petition asserts “[o]n information and belief,” that Cesar “is
eligible for relief from removal, including asylum,” not that he has applied for asylum. Pet.
¶ 17. These unsubstantiated reasons do not justify the relief he seeks. Lastly, Cesar’s APA
claim fails for the same reason that it does no more than repeat the foreclosed §§ 1225 and
1226 argument. 	See Pet. ¶ 42 (“Under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and its associated regulations,
[Cesar] is entitled to bond.”).
Because 	under 	binding 	precedent 	Cesar 	is 	not 	entitled 	to 	habeas 	relief, 	no
preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order will issue, see Dataphase Sys., Inc.
v. C L Sys., Inc., 640 F.2d 109, 113 (8th Cir. 1981) (setting out preliminary-injunction
framework); Brakebill v. Jaeger, 905 F.3d 553, 557 (8th Cir. 2018) (treating “likelihood of
success on the merits” as “[t]he most important factor”), and his petition will be denied.
CASE 0:26-cv-02255-ECT-DTS Doc. 11 Filed 04/22/26 Page 3 of 4

4
ORDER
Therefore, based on the foregoing, and on all the files, records, and proceedings
herein, IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. 	Petitioner Cesar A.S.’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [ECF No. 1] is
DENIED.
2. 	The Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary
Injunction [ECF No. 2] is DENIED.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: April 22, 2026 	s/ Eric C. Tostrud
Eric C. Tostrud
United States District Court
CASE 0:26-cv-02255-ECT-DTS Doc. 11 Filed 04/22/26 Page 4 of 4