Bondi v. Bondi
Oscar E. V. O. v. Pamela Bondi, Kristi Noem, Department of Homeland Security, Todd M. Lyons, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Daren K. Margolin, Executive Office for Immigration Review, and David Easterwood
- Michael Davis
- 0:26-cv-00087
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate.
In Oscar E. V. O. v. Bondi, Magistrate Judge Docherty recommended granting detention relief and ordering a bond hearing.
Oscar E. V. O., who challenged his immigration detention, and the government respondents responsible for that detention and immigration proceedings. If adopted, the recommendation would require a bond hearing and could require Oscar’s immediate release if the hearing is not provided.
What happened
In Oscar E. V. O. v. Bondi, Oscar E. V. O. asked the court to review his detention and claimed he was entitled to a bond hearing. He said officials detained him after he entered the United States without inspection and refused to provide a hearing.
The government argued that Oscar’s detention was mandatory and that he was not eligible for a bond hearing. The magistrate judge relied on an earlier related proceeding, which held that the statute governing discretionary detention applies to noncitizens already residing in the United States, while the statute cited by the government applies to people seeking admission.
Magistrate Judge John F. Docherty recommended granting the petition and requiring an immigration judge in Minnesota to hold a bond hearing within seven days after the district judge adopts the recommendation. The recommendation also says Oscar should be released immediately if the government does not provide the hearing, but it is not yet a final court order.
The detailed version
- Bondi v. Bondi · No. 0:26-cv-00087
- Michael Davis
- Jan. 21, 2026
Background
Oscar E. V. O. filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his immigration detention. The opinion states that he is a citizen of Honduras, entered the United States without inspection in 2021, and was detained by the respondents on December 12, 2025. When he filed the petition, he was being held in Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody in Minnesota.
Oscar claimed that 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) entitled him to a bond hearing. The respondents refused to provide one and relied on Matter of Yajure Hurtado. They argued that Oscar’s detention was mandatory under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2), which they said made him ineligible for a bond hearing.
Reasoning
The magistrate judge relied on the reasoning in a prior related proceeding, in which Judge Michael J. Davis held that § 1226(a) governs detention of noncitizens already residing in the United States, while § 1225(b)(2) governs detention of noncitizens seeking admission. Under that reasoning, detention under § 1225(b)(2) is mandatory and does not require a bond hearing; detention under § 1226(a) is discretionary and entitles the noncitizen to a bond hearing.
The respondents conceded that this case was like the prior proceeding and did not show a material difference. The magistrate judge therefore concluded that the respondents’ position was unlikely to prevail and recommended granting the petition.
Recommended disposition
The Report and Recommendation recommends that the petition be granted insofar as the respondents would be ordered to hold a bond hearing for Oscar under § 1226(a) before an immigration judge in Minnesota within seven days after an order adopting the recommendation. It further recommends that Oscar be immediately released if the respondents do not provide the required hearing.
Status of the recommendation
The document is a magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation, not a final order or judgment of the District Court. It states that objections were due by January 23, 2026, and responses to objections were due by January 26, 2026. The recommendation is not directly appealable to the Eighth Circuit. The first numbered recommendation mistakenly refers to the petitioner as “Edwin C. R.” even though the opinion identifies the petitioner as Oscar E. V. O.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.