Santuario v. Bondi
Jose Mario Romero Santuario v. Pamela Bondi, United States Attorney General; Kristi Noem, Secretary, U.S. 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; Peter Berg, Director, Fort Snelling Field Office Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Eric Tollefson, Sheriff of Kandiyohi County.
- John Tunheim
- 0:25-cv-04296
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 10
Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate.
In Romero Santuario v. Bondi, Judge Tunheim granted a detained Mexican immigrant's petition for release or a bond hearing, ruling ICE held him under the wrong law.
Noncitizens who entered the United States without inspection, have been living in the country for an extended period, and are detained by ICE pending removal proceedings — particularly those the government seeks to hold without a bond hearing by classifying them under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) rather than § 1226.
What happened
In Romero Santuario v. Bondi (Civil No. 25-4296), Jose Mario Romero Santuario, a Mexican citizen who has lived in the United States since 2004, filed a petition challenging his detention by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) after he was arrested on October 18, 2025. He argued that the government was holding him under the wrong immigration detention law — one that applies to people seeking to enter the country — when in fact he was already living inside the country, and that he was therefore entitled to a bond hearing that would let him argue for his release.
The central legal dispute was whether Petitioner's detention was governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1225, which covers people seeking admission into the United States, or 8 U.S.C. § 1226, which covers people already present in the country who are facing removal proceedings. The government argued § 1225 applied and that no bond hearing was required. Petitioner argued § 1226 applied and that he had a right to a bond hearing. The court also addressed the government's claim that it lacked jurisdiction, rejecting that argument and finding that a challenge to the lawfulness of detention is separate from the removal process itself.
Judge Tunheim granted the petition, ruling that Petitioner's detention is governed by § 1226 — not § 1225 — because he was arrested while already living in the United States, not while seeking entry. The court ordered the government to provide Petitioner with a bond hearing within 7 days, at which both sides may present evidence on whether he poses a danger or flight risk; if no hearing is held within that time, Petitioner must be immediately released. The court also ordered that Petitioner cannot be transferred out of the District of Minnesota before the bond hearing. Petitioner's separate motion for a temporary restraining order was denied as moot because the habeas petition was granted.
The detailed version
- Santuario v. Bondi · No. 0:25-cv-04296
- John Tunheim
- Dec. 2, 2025
Background
Petitioner Jose Mario Romero Santuario is a native and citizen of Mexico who states he first entered the United States without inspection in 1999, left in 2002, returned in 2004, and has lived continuously in the United States for over 21 years. On October 18, 2025, officers from ICE's Enforcement and Removal Operations arrested him. ICE issued a Notice to Appear charging him with being present in the United States without admission or parole under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1182(a)(6)(A)(i) and 1182(a)(7)(A)(i)(I).
On November 11, 2025, Petitioner filed a Verified Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus — a court order requiring the government to justify a person's detention — along with a Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO). He argued he was being held without the bond hearing to which he is legally entitled. The court held a status conference on November 25, 2025.
The Legal Framework: § 1225 vs. § 1226
The core dispute turns on which of two federal statutes authorizes Petitioner's detention.
8 U.S.C. § 1225 governs "applicants for admission" — aliens who are either present in the United States without having been admitted, or who are arriving in the United States. Under § 1225(b)(2)(A), such aliens must be detained for removal proceedings without the option of a bond hearing.
8 U.S.C. § 1226 governs aliens already present in the country who are subject to removal proceedings. Under § 1226(a), the Attorney General has discretion to detain, release on bond (of at least $1,500), or release on conditional parole. Critically, § 1226 entitles the alien to a bond hearing.
As summarized by the Supreme Court in Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281 (2018), § 1225 allows detention of those "seeking admission into the country," while § 1226 "authorizes the Government to detain certain aliens already in the country."
Respondents' Arguments
Jurisdiction
Respondents argued the court lacked jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g), which strips courts of jurisdiction over causes arising from the Attorney General's decisions to commence proceedings, adjudicate cases, or execute removal orders. The court rejected this, finding that a challenge to the lawfulness of detention is "independent of, or wholly collateral to, the removal process," citing Ozturk v. Hyde, 136 F.4th 382 (2nd Cir. 2025).
Governing Statute
Respondents argued that § 1225(b)(2) — not § 1226 — authorized Petitioner's detention because he was classified as inadmissible as an alien present without admission or parole. Respondents pointed to a recent Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision, Matter of Yajure Hurtado, 29 I. & N. Dec. 216 (BIA 2025), which adopted this broad interpretation of § 1225(b)(2).
Additional Arguments
Respondents also argued that certain named respondents were improper parties and that Petitioner's claim under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) should be dismissed. The court declined to dismiss any respondents because it was unclear on the record who would be responsible for complying with the order. The court also declined to resolve the APA argument as immaterial to the resolution of the petition, and did not address Petitioner's Fifth Amendment arguments.
The Court's Holdings
Jurisdiction
The court held it has jurisdiction. Petitioner's challenge targets the lawfulness of his detention — specifically, whether he is entitled to a bond hearing — not the decision to commence removal proceedings or execute a removal order. This brings the petition outside the scope of § 1252(g)'s jurisdiction-stripping provision.
Governing Statute
The court held that § 1226, not § 1225(b)(2), governs Petitioner's detention. Petitioner has lived in the United States since 2004 and was arrested while already in the country — he was not "seeking admission." His own Notice to Appear identified him as "an alien present in the United States who has not been admitted or paroled," not as "an arriving alien."
The court rejected the BIA's interpretation in Hurtado, invoking Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369 (2024), which held that courts must exercise independent judgment in interpreting statutes and may not simply defer to an agency's interpretation because the statute is ambiguous. The court joined numerous other district courts that have reached the same conclusion.
The court also noted that construing § 1225 to cover people already living in the United States would render Congress's 2025 amendments to § 1226(c) (governing mandatory detention of criminal aliens) superfluous — a result courts must avoid.
As an alternative ground, the court found that Petitioner qualifies as a member of a class certified in Bautista v. Santacruz, No. 5:25-1873 (C.D. Cal.), consisting of noncitizens who entered without inspection, were not apprehended upon arrival, and are not subject to certain other mandatory detention provisions. The Bautista court granted declaratory judgment that detention of such individuals under § 1225 (rather than § 1226) is unlawful.
Relief Granted
The court granted the habeas petition and ordered:
- Petitioner is not subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2); his detention, if any, must be under the discretionary provisions of § 1226(a).
- Respondents must provide Petitioner with a bond hearing within 7 days, at which both parties may present evidence and argument on whether he poses a danger to the community or a flight risk.
- If no bond hearing is provided within 7 days, Petitioner must be immediately released.
- Respondents are enjoined (prohibited by court order) from transferring Petitioner out of the District of Minnesota before the bond hearing.
- The parties must file status updates within 3 days (regarding a previously scheduled December 3, 2025 hearing) and within 10 days (regarding results of the bond hearing or Petitioner's release).
- Petitioner's Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order was denied as moot.
Broader Context
The court explicitly acknowledged that this case is one of many similar cases before it, citing prior decisions including Herrera Avila v. Bondi, Belsai D.S. v. Bondi, Jose J.O.E. v. Bondi, and Maldonado v. Olson, all reaching the same conclusion. The court's analysis follows a substantial and growing body of district court authority across the country rejecting the government's § 1225(b)(2) detention theory for individuals already residing in the United States.
Read the full 10-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.