Antonio C. v. Noem

Background

Antonio C. filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his immigration detention. The opinion states that he is a citizen of Mexico, has lived in the United States since November 2004, and has been detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement since January 14, 2026. He also has a nine-year-old child who is a United States citizen. The opinion states that Antonio C. filed a self-petition under the Violence Against Women Act in 2024 and received a preliminary eligibility determination from United States Citizenship and Immigration Services in 2025.

Antonio C. sought immediate release or a declaration that his detention was governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), which generally allows discretionary detention, rather than 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2), which requires mandatory detention for covered applicants seeking admission. He argued that he was entitled to a custody redetermination hearing before an immigration judge so he could seek bond.

The Government’s Position

The respondents stated that Antonio C. was detained under § 1225(b)(2)(A) because he fell within the statutory definition of an applicant for admission and an immigration officer had determined that he was not clearly entitled to admission. They relied on arguments the government had made in another case then pending expedited review in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. They also cited decisions adopting the government’s interpretation of § 1225.

The respondents did not provide a supporting declaration or other evidence. They reported that Antonio C. had been transferred to an Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility in Texas for bed-space reasons before an earlier order prohibited his removal from Minnesota, and that the agency was working to return him to Minnesota.

Analysis

The court identified the central question as whether a person who had lived in the United States for more than 20 years should be treated as an applicant for admission subject to mandatory detention under § 1225, or as a person detained while the government decides whether to remove him under § 1226 and therefore entitled to a bond hearing.

The court read § 1225(b)(2) to apply only to people who are “presently seeking admission at the time of their detention.” It was not persuaded by the two cases the respondents cited and agreed with decisions in the District of Minnesota and elsewhere rejecting the government’s interpretation that § 1225(b)(2) requires mandatory detention for all noncitizens living in the country who are inadmissible because they entered without inspection. The court adopted the statutory analysis from those decisions.

Recommended Disposition

The report and recommendation recommends that the petition be granted insofar as the respondents must provide Antonio C. a bond hearing before an immigration judge in Minnesota within seven days after an order adopting the report and recommendation. It further recommends that Antonio C. be immediately released if he is not given a bond hearing within that seven-day period.

This document is a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, not a final district court order or judgment. The notice states that it is not directly appealable to the Eighth Circuit. The district court set January 25, 2026, as the deadline for objections and January 28, 2026, as the deadline for responses to objections.