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 a Somali asylum-seeker's petition for release from immigration detention and ordering a bond hearing.
Noncitizens — particularly asylum seekers and others who entered the United States without authorization, were previously released under the discretionary detention provision (8 U.S.C. § 1226), and have since been re-detained under the government's new policy treating them as subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225. This ruling, if adopted by the district court, would require that such individuals receive a bond hearing before they can be held.
What happened
In Mahamed C.A. v. Kristi Noem et al. (Case No. 25-CV-4551), a Somali man who entered the United States in November 2022, was released by immigration officials under a discretionary detention law, and then suddenly re-detained in December 2025 filed a petition asking a federal court to order his release or give him a hearing to set bond. The government's new position—announced in July 2025—is that people like the petitioner are subject to a different immigration law requiring mandatory detention with no bond hearing, a complete reversal from how the government treated him for the prior three years. Every judge in the District of Minnesota who had considered this question, as well as hundreds of courts nationwide, had already rejected the government's new interpretation.
The key legal dispute is which of two sections of the Immigration and Nationality Act controls. The government argues that Section 1225, which requires mandatory detention for people "seeking admission" to the United States, applies to the petitioner because he applied for asylum. The petitioner argues that Section 1226, which allows for discretionary release after a hearing, applies because he has been physically living inside the United States for years and was already treated under that provision when he first arrived. The court found the government's argument illogical, comparing it to treating someone who sneaks into a movie theater and watches the film as still "seeking admission" to the theater.
Magistrate Judge John F. Docherty recommends that the petition for a writ of habeas corpus—a legal request to a court to review whether a person's detention is lawful—be granted, and that the petitioner be given a bond hearing in Minnesota, where he has been living. The recommendation notes that the government's sole supporting case, Chen v. Almodovar from the Southern District of New York, is an outlier that courts in that same district have since declined to follow. Because this is a magistrate judge's recommendation rather than a final order, either party may file written objections within 14 days, and a district court judge will make the final decision.
The detailed version
- 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 by crossing the border from Mexico. Upon immediate encounter with U.S. immigration officials, he was issued a Notice to Appear — a charging document initiating immigration removal proceedings — and released 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, claiming danger in Somalia due to his marriage to a woman from a different clan.
Petitioner remained free for approximately three years. In approximately December 2025, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) re-detained him. This re-detention appears to be a consequence of a July 2025 ICE policy announcement declaring that all applicants for admission — not only arriving aliens — would be treated as subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). Shortly after Petitioner filed his habeas petition, ICE transferred him from the Sherburne County Jail in Minnesota to Texas, citing "bed space decompression" — meaning, as the court characterized it, that ICE had arrested so many people in Minnesota that detention space was exhausted.
The Legal Question
The central dispute is which provision of the INA governs detention:
- 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) applies to "an alien seeking admission" and mandates detention during immigration proceedings with no bond hearing. - 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) applies to aliens unlawfully present in the United States and makes detention discretionary, requiring a bond hearing before detention can be imposed.
The government's new position is that Petitioner, as an asylum applicant who has never been formally "admitted," falls under § 1225 and must be held without a bond hearing. Petitioner argues that § 1226 governs because he has been physically present and living inside the United States for years and was treated under § 1226 from the moment of his first contact with immigration officials.
Analysis
Judicial Consensus Against the Government's Position
Magistrate Judge Docherty notes that the United States itself concedes Petitioner's case is similar to numerous others in the District of Minnesota, in every one of which a district judge ruled against the government's new interpretation. The opinion lists nine such cases from this district. Nationally, the court notes that over 300 cases have been decided against the government's position.
The court finds no reason to depart from this consensus. It emphasizes that for decades the government itself treated individuals in Petitioner's situation as subject to § 1226 — including treating Petitioner that way from 2022 until December 2025.
The "Applicant for Admission" Argument
The government argued that by applying for asylum, Petitioner necessarily placed himself in the position of one "applying for admission," regardless of his physical presence inside the United States. The court rejected this argument, adopting the analysis from Goorakani v. Lyons, Case No. 25-cv-9456 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 15, 2025), which explained that "applicant for admission" is a term of art in the INA covering two categories: (1) those already present in the United States who have not been admitted, and (2) those arriving at the border. Section 1225's mandatory detention applies only to the second category — those arriving — not to the first.
The court also adopted an analogy from Lopez Benitez v. Francis, No. 25 Civ. 5937 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 13, 2025): treating a person who has lived in the country for years as "seeking admission" is as illogical as treating someone who enters a movie theater without a ticket, watches the film, and is then considered still "seeking admission" to the theater.
The Chen Outlier
The government's only supporting authority was Chen v. Almodovar, Case No. 1:25-cv-8350 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 4, 2025), which held that "applicant for admission" encompasses all noncitizens who have not been formally admitted. The court characterized Chen as an outlier. The Chen court itself acknowledged it was contradicting prior decisions in its own district. Since Chen was decided, no judge in the Southern District of New York or the broader Second Circuit has followed it; five decisions (Moran v. Joyce, Goorakani v. Lyons, Walizada v. Trump, Campbell v. Almodovar, and Zhi Ye v. Maldonado, Jr.) have declined to follow it. The undersigned respectfully declined to follow Chen.
Jurisdiction
The government did not challenge the court's jurisdiction in this case. The court noted in a footnote that had jurisdiction been challenged, it would have followed the analysis in Fuentes v. Olson and the reasoning of Judge Provinzino in Acxel S.Q.D.C. v. Bondi, and would have recommended finding jurisdiction.
Recommendation and Disposition
Magistrate Judge Docherty recommends that the Petition for a writ of habeas corpus be granted and that Petitioner be afforded a bond hearing in the District of Minnesota, where witnesses and evidence are likely to be found given Petitioner's residence in that district.
Because this is a Report and Recommendation from a magistrate judge — a judicial officer who assists but does not issue final rulings — it is not itself a final order. Either party may file written objections within 14 days of service. The assigned district court judge (Chief Judge Michael J. Davis) will then review the recommendation and issue the final ruling.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.