N.A.M. v. Noem
N.A.M. v. Kristi Noem, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security; U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Pamela Bondi, U.S. Attorney General; Todd Lyons, Acting Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Immigration and Customs Enforcement; David Easterwood, Acting Director, St. Paul Field Office Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Joel Brott, Sheriff of Sherburne County
- John Tunheim
- 0:25-cv-04737
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 5
Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate.
In N.A.M. v. Noem, Judge Tunheim granted an El Salvadoran detainee's petition for release from immigration detention without a bond hearing, ordering ICE to hold that hearing within 7 days.
Noncitizens detained by ICE inside the United States who are placed in removal proceedings and denied bond hearings on the theory that they are subject to § 1225(b)(2) rather than § 1226(a). This ruling, consistent with two prior District of Minnesota decisions, holds that people arrested while already living in the U.S. — not at the border — are entitled to an individualized bond hearing under § 1226(a).
What happened
In N.A.M. v. Noem (Civil No. 25-4737), a man identified only as N.A.M. — a citizen of El Salvador who has lived in the United States since 2005 — was arrested by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in November 2025 while agents were executing a state search warrant at a family member's home in Lake Elmo, Minnesota. ICE detained him at the Sherburne County Jail without giving him the opportunity to appear before a judge to argue for his release on bond. N.A.M. filed a legal challenge (called a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, a court order requiring the government to justify a person's detention) arguing that the law entitled him to such a hearing.
The central legal dispute was which immigration detention law applied. The government argued that N.A.M. fell under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2), a provision covering people seeking admission at the border, which does not provide for a bond hearing. N.A.M. argued he should be covered by 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), which governs detention of people already present in the United States and requires that they be given a bond hearing. The court found that because N.A.M. was arrested while already living inside the United States — and because his own Notice to Appear from ICE described him as 'present in the United States without being admitted or paroled' — the § 1226 framework applied.
Judge John R. Tunheim granted the petition, relying on the same legal reasoning applied in two earlier Minnesota cases: Herrera Avila v. Bondi and Romero Santuario v. Bondi. Judge Tunheim ordered the government to provide N.A.M. with a bond hearing within 7 days, at which an immigration judge will consider whether N.A.M. poses a danger to the community or is a flight risk. If the government fails to hold that hearing in time, N.A.M. must be immediately released. The court also prohibited the government from transferring or deporting N.A.M. out of the District of Minnesota before the bond hearing takes place, and granted N.A.M.'s request to proceed using only his initials because he is a victim and witness in a state criminal investigation.
The detailed version
- N.A.M. v. Noem · No. 0:25-cv-04737
- John Tunheim
- Dec. 29, 2025
Background
Petitioner N.A.M. is a citizen of El Salvador who entered the United States without inspection in June 2005. On November 3, 2025, ICE arrested him while assisting state and local law enforcement executing a state search warrant at the residence of an extended family member where N.A.M. was living. ICE served him with a Notice to Appear (Form I-862) charging him as removable under two provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA): § 212(a)(6)(A)(i) (present in the United States without being admitted or paroled) and § 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) (not in possession of a valid entry document). N.A.M. was detained at the Sherburne County Jail in Elk River, Minnesota.
On December 22, 2025, N.A.M. filed a Verified Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus — a legal mechanism by which a detained person asks a federal court to order the government to justify the detention. He argued that holding him without a bond hearing was unlawful. The court issued an order to show cause requiring the government to respond by December 24, 2025, which it did. N.A.M. also moved to proceed under a pseudonym, citing his status as a victim and witness in a state criminal investigation and his fear of retribution.
Legal Issue
The sole legal question was which detention statute governed N.A.M.'s confinement:
- 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2): The government argued this provision applied. It covers noncitizens who are 'applicants for admission' — generally, people apprehended at or near the border — and does not afford the right to a bond hearing before an immigration judge. - 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a): N.A.M. argued this provision applied. It governs detention of noncitizens already present in the United States pending removal proceedings and entitles the detainee to a bond hearing at which the government must show the person poses a danger or flight risk.
The distinction is significant: under § 1225(b)(2), detention is mandatory without individualized review; under § 1226(a), an immigration judge must weigh evidence and can set conditions for release.
Analysis
The court expressly incorporated the reasoning from two of its prior opinions: Herrera Avila v. Bondi, No. 25-3741, 2025 WL 2976539 (D. Minn. Oct. 21, 2025), and Romero Santuario v. Bondi, No. 25-4296, 2025 WL 3469577 (D. Minn. Dec. 2, 2025). The court did not separately restate that full analysis but stated that the same legal framework controlled.
The court found dispositive that (1) N.A.M. was arrested while already living inside the United States — not at or near a port of entry — and (2) ICE's own Notice to Appear charged him under the INA provision describing him as 'present in the United States without being admitted or paroled.' On those facts, the court concluded that § 1226 — not § 1225(b)(2) — governed his detention, and that he was therefore entitled to an individualized bond hearing.
Holding and Order
Judge Tunheim granted N.A.M.'s habeas petition and entered the following orders:
- Bond hearing required: N.A.M. is not subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2). His detention, if any, must be under § 1226(a). The government must provide him a bond hearing within 7 days of the order, at which both parties may present evidence and argument on danger to the community and flight risk.
- Automatic release if no hearing: If the government fails to hold the bond hearing as ordered, N.A.M. must be immediately released from detention.
- Status update: The parties must file a status update with the court within 10 days advising of the outcome of any bond hearing, or of N.A.M.'s release if no hearing was held, and propose whether further litigation is needed.
- Transfer injunction: Respondents are enjoined (legally barred) from removing, transferring, or facilitating N.A.M.'s removal from the District of Minnesota before the bond hearing. Post-hearing transfers may only occur with court permission upon a showing of unforeseen or emergency circumstances, including a proposed destination.
- Pseudonym granted: N.A.M.'s motion to proceed under a pseudonym was granted based on the court's finding that his need for anonymity — as a victim and witness in a state criminal proceeding facing potential retribution — outweighs the public interest in full disclosure.
- Redaction requests: The parties have 3 days to file any requests for redaction of the record.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.