Fulgencio B. v. Lyons

Background

Fulgencio B. is identified in the opinion as a Mexican citizen who has lived in the United States since 2002. He said he did not have a notice to appear, had never been placed in removal proceedings, had no prior removal orders, and had not voluntarily left the United States. He also said that he had not committed any crimes in the United States during his more than 20 years there.

The opinion states that alleged Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents arrested Fulgencio in Bloomington, Minnesota, on January 10, 2026. He was detained at the Fort Snelling Immigration Court Detention Facility and was receiving emergency medical care at Southdale Fairview Hospital when he filed his petition.

Claims and Responses

Fulgencio challenged his detention under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, a federal law that allows a court to review certain unlawful detention. He argued that respondents had wrongly classified him under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2), which the parties treated as requiring mandatory detention, instead of 8 U.S.C. § 1226, which allows discretionary detention and can provide for a bond hearing. He asserted that the classification and denial of a bond hearing violated the Fifth Amendment and federal immigration statutes.

He requested release or a bond hearing, as well as other orders concerning his detention, possible bond proceedings, and transfer from Minnesota. Respondents argued that the petition raised issues similar to earlier detention cases and failed for the reasons given in an earlier related proceeding.

Court’s Analysis

The court held that Fulgencio had been misclassified under § 1225(b)(2) rather than § 1226. Section 1225(b)(2) applies to applicants seeking admission, while § 1226 applies to noncitizens already in the country. Based on Fulgencio’s approximately 23 years in the United States, the court concluded that his detention fell under § 1226 and not § 1225(b)(2).

The court also addressed the detention requirements under § 1226(a). It held that an arrest warrant is a necessary condition for discretionary detention under that provision. Respondents had not produced a warrant in either of the consolidated cases involving Fulgencio. They stated that many courts in the District of Minnesota considered release appropriate when an arrest was not preceded by a warrant, but they did not make a specific argument that release would be an improper remedy here.

The court stated that release is an available and appropriate remedy when detention lacks a lawful basis. Because the court resolved the statutory-interpretation issue in Fulgencio’s favor, it found it unnecessary to address the petition’s remaining grounds. In a footnote, the court also stated that federal laws limiting judicial review did not prevent it from deciding the narrow question whether Fulgencio was subject to discretionary detention under § 1226 or mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2).

Order

The court granted Fulgencio B.’s petition. It ordered that he was not subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) and directed respondents to release him from custody as soon as practicable, but no later than 48 hours after entry of the order. The order did not direct a bond hearing as the remedy; it directed release.

Judge

The opinion was signed by Eric C. Tostrud of the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota.