Iishaar-Abdi v. Klang
Mohamed Iishaar-Abdi v. Eric Klang, Sheriff of Crow Wing County; David Easterwood, Acting Director of St. Paul Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Kristi Noem, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security; and Pamela Bondi, Attorney General of the United States
- John Tunheim
- 0:25-cv-04686
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 5
Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate.
In Iishaar-Abdi v. Klang, Judge Tunheim granted a Somali immigrant's petition for release from detention without a bond hearing, ordering ICE to hold a bond hearing within 7 days.
Noncitizens who entered the United States without authorization, are already present in the country, and have been arrested and detained by ICE pending removal proceedings — particularly those held without a bond hearing under the government's argument that § 1225(b)(2) applies. This ruling, consistent with prior decisions from this court, holds that such individuals are entitled to a bond hearing under § 1226(a). The ruling also addresses whether filing an asylum application changes this analysis (the court says it does not).
What happened
In Mohamed Iishaar-Abdi v. Eric Klang et al. (Civil No. 25-4686), Mohamed Iishaar-Abdi, a Somali citizen who entered the United States without authorization in April 2022 and has a pending asylum application, was arrested by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in December 2025 and held at the Crow Wing County jail in Brainerd, Minnesota. He filed a petition asking a federal court to order a bond hearing, arguing that the government was unlawfully detaining him without any opportunity to challenge his detention before a judge.
The central legal dispute was which federal immigration statute governs Iishaar-Abdi's detention. The government argued he fell under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2), a provision that applies to people 'seeking admission' into the United States, which does not require a bond hearing. Iishaar-Abdi argued he was governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1226, which applies to people already present in the United States and does require the opportunity for a bond hearing. The government also argued that his having filed an asylum application changed the analysis, but the court rejected that argument.
Judge John R. Tunheim granted Iishaar-Abdi's petition, ruling that because Iishaar-Abdi was arrested while already present in the United States — as confirmed by his own Notice to Appear — his detention is governed by § 1226, not § 1225(b)(2). The court ordered the government to provide Iishaar-Abdi with a bond hearing within 7 days, at which an immigration judge will consider whether he poses a danger to the community or a flight risk. If no bond hearing is held within that time, the court ordered his immediate release. The court also enjoined the government from removing, transferring, or deporting Iishaar-Abdi from the District of Minnesota before the bond hearing occurs.
The detailed version
- Iishaar-Abdi v. Klang · No. 0:25-cv-04686
- John Tunheim
- Dec. 30, 2025
Background
Mohamed Iishaar-Abdi is a native and citizen of Somalia who entered the United States without inspection (i.e., without going through an authorized entry point) on or around April 9, 2022. Two days later, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) initiated removal proceedings against him by issuing a Notice to Appear (Form I-862), charging him as removable under Section 212(a)(6)(A)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) — specifically, as a noncitizen present in the United States without being admitted or paroled. On August 29, 2022, Iishaar-Abdi filed an Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal (Form I-589), which remained pending before the Executive Office of Immigration Review (EOIR) at the time of this ruling.
On December 4, 2025, ICE officers arrested Iishaar-Abdi and placed him in detention at the Crow Wing County jail in Brainerd, Minnesota. On December 18, 2025, he filed a Verified Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus — a legal request asking a federal court to order his release or, at minimum, a hearing on whether his detention is lawful. He argued that detaining him without any opportunity for a bond hearing violates the law.
The Legal Dispute
The core question before the court was which statutory detention framework applies to Iishaar-Abdi, because the answer determines whether he is entitled to a bond hearing.
The government's position
Respondents argued that Iishaar-Abdi is subject to detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2), which applies to noncitizens who are "arriving aliens" or who are deemed to be "seeking admission" to the United States. Under § 1225(b)(2), a noncitizen can be detained without a bond hearing. The government further argued that because Iishaar-Abdi filed an asylum application, he was "seeking admission" and therefore fell under § 1225(b)(2) rather than § 1226.
Iishaar-Abdi's position
Iishaar-Abdi argued that his detention is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), which applies to noncitizens who are already present in the United States and are subject to removal proceedings. Under § 1226(a), the government may arrest and detain a noncitizen pending a removal decision, but the noncitizen is entitled to a bond hearing before an immigration judge, who must assess whether the person poses a danger to the community or is a flight risk.
Analysis and Holding
Judge Tunheim concluded that the legal issues in this case are materially identical to those the court resolved in two prior cases: 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). Applying the same reasoning from those cases, Judge Tunheim held:
1. Jurisdiction: The court has jurisdiction to hear Iishaar-Abdi's habeas petition.
2. Applicable statute: Because Iishaar-Abdi was arrested while already present in the United States — a fact confirmed by his own Notice to Appear, which designated him as "present in the United States without being admitted or paroled" — his detention is governed by § 1226, not § 1225(b)(2).
3. Effect of asylum application: The court rejected the government's argument that the filing of an asylum application renders Iishaar-Abdi a person "seeking admission" under § 1225(b)(2)(A). The court cited other federal court decisions reaching the same conclusion, including Yao v. Almodovar, Civ. No. 25-9982, 2025 WL 3653433 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 17, 2025), and Pacheco-Acosta v. Olson, Civ. No. 25-186, 2025 WL 3542128 (E.D. Ky. Dec. 10, 2025).
Order
Judge Tunheim granted the petition and issued the following specific directives:
- Bond hearing required: Respondents must provide Iishaar-Abdi with a bond hearing under § 1226(a) within 7 days of the order. At that hearing, both sides may present evidence and argument on whether he poses a danger to the community or is a flight risk.
- Automatic release if no hearing: If Respondents fail to hold the bond hearing within 7 days, Iishaar-Abdi must be immediately released from detention.
- Status update: Within 10 days, the parties must inform the court of the outcome of any bond hearing, or advise it of Iishaar-Abdi's release if no hearing was held, and propose any further proceedings.
- Injunction against transfer or removal: Respondents are enjoined (i.e., legally prohibited) from removing, transferring, or otherwise facilitating Iishaar-Abdi's removal from the District of Minnesota before the bond hearing occurs. After the bond hearing, if ICE seeks to transfer Iishaar-Abdi for emergency or unforeseen reasons, it must first get court approval and explain the reasons and proposed destination.
- Redaction requests: Within 3 days, the parties may file any requests to redact information from the public record.
The court directed that judgment be entered accordingly.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.