Hector V. v. Bondi
Hector V. v. Pamela Bondi, Attorney General; Kristi Noem, U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Todd M. Lyons, Acting Director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement; David Easterwood, Acting Director, St. Paul Field Office, Immigration and Customs Enforcement
- David Doty
- 0:26-cv-00576
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate.
In Hector V. v. Bondi, Judge Doty granted habeas relief, ordered a bond hearing, and barred removal before that hearing.
Hector V. and the immigration authorities holding or otherwise responsible for him.
What happened
Hector V. v. Pamela Bondi involved Hector V., a Venezuelan citizen detained by immigration authorities while his asylum application was pending and before any final removal order. He challenged his detention and sought release or a bond hearing.
Hector argued that the government wrongly treated him as subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). The court agreed that people already in the country in his circumstances are generally governed by § 1226, which allows detention but provides for a bond hearing.
Judge David S. Doty granted the petition. He ordered respondents to provide a bond hearing within seven days, required immediate release if they failed to do so, barred removal or transfer from the District of Minnesota before the hearing, and required the return of seized employment authorization and identification documents upon release.
The detailed version
- Hector V. v. Bondi · No. 0:26-cv-00576
- David Doty
- Jan. 28, 2026
Background
Hector V. filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, a legal procedure used to challenge unlawful detention. The opinion states that Hector is a citizen of Venezuela, has lived in Minnesota since December 2021, has a pending asylum application, and does not have a final removal order. Respondents had held him in custody since January 22, 2026.
Hector challenged his detention and requested immediate release or an expedited bond hearing, along with injunctive relief. He argued that respondents had incorrectly classified him as subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). He asserted that the classification violated the Fifth Amendment’s due-process guarantee, provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act and related regulations, and the Administrative Procedure Act.
Legal issue and analysis
The narrow issue was whether Hector fell under § 1225(b)(2), which requires detention, or § 1226, which gives the government discretion over detention and allows a bond hearing under the circumstances identified in the order.
The court noted that many judges in the District of Minnesota and elsewhere had considered the issue. It said the great weight of authority persuasively held that people in Hector’s circumstances had been improperly detained under § 1225(b)(2) and should receive the procedures available under § 1226. The court agreed with the view that § 1225(b)(2) applies to applicants “seeking admission,” while § 1226 applies to “aliens already in the country.” The court was not persuaded that Hector’s pending asylum application required a different result.
Ruling
The court granted the petition for a writ of habeas corpus. It ordered that:
- Hector is not subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) and is instead subject, if detained, to the discretionary detention provisions of 8 U.S.C. §
- 2. Respondents must provide Hector a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a)(2)(A) within seven days of the order.
- If respondents do not provide the required bond hearing under § 1226(a), Hector must be immediately released.
- Respondents may not remove, transfer, or otherwise facilitate Hector’s removal from the District of Minnesota before the bond hearing.
- Upon Hector’s release, respondents must return any employment authorization documentation and other identification documentation seized when he was arrested.
Judge David S. Doty ordered that judgment be entered accordingly.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.