Mahamed C.A. v. Noem
Mahamed C.A. v. Kristi Noem, U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Department of Homeland Security, in her official capacity; Pamela Bondi, Attorney General of the United States, Department of Justice, in her official capacity; Todd M. Lyons, Acting Director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Immigration and Customs Enforcement, in his official capacity; Peter Berg, Field Office Director of Enforcement and Removal Operations, St. Paul Field Office, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, in his official capacity; and Joel L. Brott, Sheriff of Sherburne County, custodian of detainees of the Sherburne County Detention Center
- Michael Davis
- 0:25-cv-04551
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 7
Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate.
In Mahamed C.A. v. Noem, Magistrate Judge Docherty recommends granting Mahamed C.A.'s petition for release from immigration detention and ordering a bond hearing.
Noncitizens who entered the United States without authorization, were released by immigration officials under discretionary detention rules, and are now being re-detained by ICE under a new government policy claiming they are subject to mandatory detention as 'applicants for admission.' This includes asylum seekers who have lived in the United States for years under prior immigration supervision.
What happened
In Mahamed C.A. v. Noem (Case No. 25-CV-4551), a Somali man who entered the United States in 2022 and was released by immigration officials at that time was re-detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement in December 2025. The government justified the new detention by arguing that he falls under a section of the Immigration and Nationality Act requiring mandatory detention for people 'seeking admission' to the United States — a legal theory ICE announced in July 2025 and applied to him for the first time roughly three years after he arrived. He filed a petition asking a federal court to order his release or, at minimum, a hearing to decide whether he could be freed on bond.
The key legal dispute is which section of the Immigration and Nationality Act applies to him. The government argued he is an 'applicant for admission' subject to mandatory, no-bond detention under Section 1225. The petitioner argued he should be treated as someone already present in the country — subject to the discretionary detention rules of Section 1226, which require a hearing before he can be held. Every district judge in Minnesota who has considered this question has rejected the government's new interpretation, and over 300 courts nationwide have done the same. The court reviewed and declined to follow the one out-of-district decision the government cited in its favor, finding it an outlier contradicted by later rulings even within its own courthouse.
Magistrate Judge John F. Docherty recommends that the petition be granted and that Mahamed C.A. be given a bond hearing in the District of Minnesota. Because this is a magistrate judge's report and recommendation rather than a final order, either party may file written objections within 14 days; a district court judge must then review and act on the recommendation before it becomes binding.
The detailed version
- Mahamed C.A. v. Noem · No. 0:25-cv-04551
- Michael Davis
- Dec. 16, 2025
Background
Petitioner Mahamed C.A. is a Somali national who entered the United States illegally in November 2022. Upon crossing the border from Mexico, he encountered U.S. immigration officials who issued him a Notice to Appear — a charging document initiating immigration removal proceedings — and released him under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), the discretionary detention provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). He applied for asylum on March 20, 2023, stating that his marriage to a woman from a different Somali clan puts him at risk if returned to Somalia.
From 2022 until approximately December 1, 2025, Petitioner remained free. In December 2025, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detained him, apparently acting on a July 2025 policy announcement directing that all applicants for admission — not just those arriving at ports of entry — be treated as subject to the mandatory detention provision, 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). Shortly after Petitioner filed his habeas petition, ICE transferred him from Minnesota to Texas, citing the need for what the government described as 'bed space decompression' in Minnesota.
Legal Framework
Two INA provisions are at the center of this dispute:
- 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2): Applies to 'an alien seeking admission' to the United States; requires mandatory detention during immigration proceedings, with no bond hearing. - 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a): Applies to an alien already unlawfully present in the United States; allows discretionary detention, but only after a hearing.
The government's new position is that Petitioner qualifies as an 'applicant for admission' under § 1225 because he has never been formally admitted and is seeking asylum — placing him in mandatory detention regardless of how long he has been in the country or how he was treated at the time of his original encounter with immigration authorities.
Petitioner argues that having been in the country for over three years and having been treated under § 1226 since his arrival, he cannot now be reclassified as an arriving alien subject to mandatory detention.
Judicial Consensus Against the Government's Position
The court notes that the United States concedes Petitioner's claim is similar to numerous other cases in this district, in every one of which a district judge ruled against the government's new interpretation. The opinion lists eight such decisions from the District of Minnesota. Nationally, the court notes that over 300 cases have been decided adversely to the government's position.
The court identifies only one case supporting the government — Chen v. Almodovar, Case No. 1:25-cv-8350 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 4, 2025) — which held that 'applicant for admission' includes all noncitizens not yet formally admitted. The court declines to follow Chen for several reasons:
- Chen is an outlier even within the Southern District of New York, where it contradicted prior decisions.
- A later decision from the same district, Goorakani v. Lyons, No. 25-cv-9456 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 15, 2025), explained that 'applicant for admission' is a term of art covering two categories — those already present but not yet admitted, and those arriving at the border — and that § 1225 applies only to the second (arriving) category.
- No judge in the Second Circuit has followed Chen since it was decided; multiple decisions have explicitly declined to follow it.
The Government's Asylum-Specific Argument
The government separately argued that by applying for asylum, Petitioner necessarily placed himself in the position of someone seeking admission, wherever he is physically located. The court addressed and rejected this argument. The opinion notes that the District of Minnesota has not drawn a distinction between asylum applicants and other noncitizens present within U.S. borders when analyzing § 1225 versus § 1226. See Maldonado v. Olson, 795 F. Supp. 3d 1134 (D. Minn. 2025). The court also invoked a hypothetical from another court: treating someone who has been in the country for years as 'seeking admission' is as illogical as treating a person who entered a movie theater without a ticket and watched the film as still 'seeking admission' to the theater. Lopez Benitez v. Francis, No. 25 Civ. 5937 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 13, 2025).
Recommendation and Procedure
Magistrate Judge Docherty recommends that the petition for a writ of habeas corpus (a court order challenging the legality of a person's detention) be granted, and that Petitioner be afforded a bond hearing in the District of Minnesota, where the court notes witnesses and evidence are likely to be found given that Petitioner has been living there.
This document is a Report and Recommendation, not a final order. It is not directly appealable to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. Under Local Rule 72.2(b)(1), any party may file written objections within 14 days of being served with the report. Responses to objections are due within 14 days thereafter. The assigned district court judge (Judge Michael J. Davis, based on the case number designation) must review the recommendation before it takes effect.
Jurisdiction Note
The court notes in a footnote that one prior Minnesota case found no jurisdiction to decide the § 1225 versus § 1226 issue. Because the government did not challenge jurisdiction in this case, the court did not reach that question. The court stated, however, that had the government raised a jurisdictional challenge, it would have found the analysis in that prior case persuasive and would have recommended that the district court find jurisdiction.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.