Emilio R. v. Pamela Jo Bondi

Background

Emilio R. filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, a procedure allowing a detained person to challenge custody that allegedly violates federal law or the Constitution. The opinion states that Emilio R. is a citizen of Mexico who has lived in the United States for more than 20 years. He alleged that Immigration and Customs Enforcement arrested him on January 7, 2026, while Respondents stated that the arrest occurred on January 8, 2026, as part of “Operation Metro Surge.” Respondents stated that he had previously been encountered by Border Patrol in 2003, voluntarily returned to Mexico twice, entered the United States without inspection or parole, and was awaiting an immigration removal hearing.

The petition sought a declaration that Emilio R. was detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), which generally permits discretionary detention pending a decision on removal, rather than under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2), which provides for mandatory detention of certain people treated as applicants for admission. He argued that § 1226(a) entitled him to a custody redetermination, or bond, hearing before an immigration judge.

Court’s Analysis

The government asked the court to deny the petition, saying that the case raised issues similar to cases then before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. It adopted and preserved the arguments made by the government in that related appellate litigation but did not present specific arguments supporting denial in this case.

The court focused on whether a person who allegedly entered without inspection or parole, but had lived in the United States for more than 20 years and was arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement inside the country, should be treated under § 1225 or § 1226. The court relied on decisions from the District of Minnesota and other courts rejecting the government’s interpretation that § 1225(b)(2) requires mandatory detention of all noncitizens living in the country who are inadmissible because they entered without inspection. It adopted the statutory analysis in one of those decisions and concluded that the existing decisions overwhelmingly supported Emilio R.’s position.

Recommended Disposition

Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright recommended that the petition be granted insofar as Respondents would be required to arrange a bond hearing for Emilio R. before an immigration judge in Minnesota within seven days after a district judge adopts the Report and Recommendation. If no bond hearing occurred within that period, she recommended that Emilio R. be immediately released.

She also recommended ordering Respondents to return Emilio R. to Minnesota immediately and enjoining them from moving him outside Minnesota again until further order. The stated purposes were to allow him to consult with counsel and to avoid a possible effect on the court’s jurisdiction.

This document is a magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation, not a final order or judgment. The notice states that objections were due by January 21, 2026, with responses due by January 23, 2026. The opinion does not state whether a district judge later adopted the recommendations.