R.C. v. Samuel J. Olson
- Eric Tostrud
- 0:25-cv-03811
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 16
Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate.
In Ramon R.C. v. Olson, Magistrate Judge Brisbois recommended granting the petition and ordering immigration officials to give a long-term undocumented resident a bond hearing.
Noncitizen individuals — particularly long-term undocumented residents — who have been arrested by ICE and detained without a bond hearing under the government's policy of classifying them as applicants for admission subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225. This ruling, if adopted by the district court, would require that Ramon R.C. specifically receive a bond hearing. It also reflects and reinforces a nationwide pattern of courts rejecting the government's § 1225 mandatory-detention argument for people with long-term U.S. residence.
What happened
In Ramon R.C. v. Samuel J. Olson, et al., Case No. 25-cv-3811, a man from Mexico who has lived in the United States for more than twenty years was arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in August 2025. After his arrest, an immigration judge refused to give him a bond hearing, ruling that he fell under a law — 8 U.S.C. § 1225 — that applies to people seeking admission to the United States and that does not allow for a bond hearing. Ramon R.C. filed a petition asking a federal court to order the government to give him a bond hearing, arguing that the correct law — 8 U.S.C. § 1226 — does allow such a hearing for people already living in the country.
The central legal dispute is whether a person who has lived in the United States for over two decades, with no admission from immigration authorities, counts as someone 'seeking admission' under § 1225, or whether he is someone already present in the country whose detention is governed by § 1226. The government argued that because Ramon R.C. was never legally admitted, he is automatically treated as an applicant for admission subject to mandatory detention with no bond hearing available. The court found this argument squarely wrong, noting that more than 300 federal courts across the country have rejected the same government argument, and that every judge in the District of Minnesota to consider the question has ruled against the government on this issue.
Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois recommended that the petition be granted in part: the government should be ordered to provide Ramon R.C. with a bond hearing within seven days of any order adopting this recommendation. Judge Brisbois also recommended denying the part of the petition seeking immediate release, finding Ramon R.C. had not shown his detention itself was unlawful — only that he was owed a bond hearing. The judge further recommended denying as moot the motions for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, and denying the request to prevent the government from transferring Ramon R.C. out of the district. This is a Report and Recommendation from a magistrate judge, not a final order; the assigned district judge must still act on it, and either party may file written objections within 14 days.
The detailed version
- R.C. v. Samuel J. Olson · No. 0:25-cv-03811
- Eric Tostrud
- Dec. 30, 2025
Nature of the Proceeding
This is a Report and Recommendation issued by a United States Magistrate Judge — a judicial officer who assists district court judges — pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Local Rule 72.1. It is not a final order; the assigned district judge (Judge Tostrud) must adopt, modify, or reject it. Either party may file written objections within 14 days of service.
Background
Petitioner Ramon R.C. is a citizen of Mexico who entered the United States without inspection, according to various filings either in 2001 or 2003 (the court found it unnecessary to resolve the discrepancy). He is married to a U.S. citizen and has a minor U.S. citizen daughter. On August 2, 2025, ICE officers encountered him in Burnsville, Minnesota, and arrested him. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) initiated removal proceedings, charging him as present in the United States without admission or parole under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i) and later also as an immigrant lacking valid documentation at the time of application for admission.
Following arrest, Ramon R.C. requested a bond hearing (formally called a custody redetermination proceeding). An immigration judge denied the request, ruling that under a recent policy change by the Bureau of Immigration Affairs (BIA), Ramon R.C. was subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225, a provision under which no bond hearing is available, rather than under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), which does allow bond hearings. A motion to reconsider was also denied. Ramon R.C. appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA); that appeal remains pending. On October 15, 2025, he was provisionally ordered removed to Mexico; he has appealed that order as well, which automatically stays its execution.
Ramon R.C. filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus — a legal mechanism to challenge unlawful detention — on September 30, 2025, followed by an Amended Petition (the operative filing). He also filed two motions for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and Preliminary Injunction. He remains detained at the Sherburne County Jail.
Statutory Framework
Two detention statutes are at issue:
8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) — Discretionary Detention
Permits arrest and detention of a noncitizen pending a removal decision. Under federal regulations, individuals detained under § 1226(a) receive bond hearings at the outset of detention. The court noted no party argued that § 1226(c), which covers mandatory detention for certain criminal offenses, applies here.
8 U.S.C. § 1225 — Mandatory Detention
Applies to '[a]n alien present in the United States who has not been admitted or who arrives in the United States,' who is deemed 'an applicant for admission.' § 1225(b)(1) covers aliens initially found inadmissible due to fraud or lack of documentation (subject to expedited removal). § 1225(b)(2) is a broader catchall provision. Neither § 1225(b)(1) nor § 1225(b)(2) provides for bond hearings. The government argued that because Ramon R.C. was never admitted, he is automatically an 'applicant for admission' under § 1225.
Jurisdictional Issue: Does 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g) Bar This Court?
Respondents argued that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g) — which strips courts of jurisdiction over challenges to the Attorney General's decisions to commence proceedings, adjudicate cases, or execute removal orders — deprives this court of jurisdiction.
The court rejected this argument, citing Supreme Court precedent in Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, 525 U.S. 471 (1999), which held that § 1252(g) applies only to those three discrete actions. Ramon R.C.'s challenge is to the legality of his detention, which is 'independent of, and collateral to, the removal process.' The court also noted that the Eighth Circuit has carved out an exception to § 1252(g) for habeas claims raising pure questions of law, as this case does. The court noted that this jurisdictional argument has been 'soundly rejected by nearly every Court across the nation.'
Merits: Is Ramon R.C. Subject to § 1225(b)(2) Mandatory Detention?
The BIA, in Matter of Yajure Hurtado, 29 I&N Dec. 216 (BIA 2025), concluded that § 1225(b)(2) applies to all individuals charged as inadmissible under § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i) — the same charge brought against Ramon R.C. Respondents relied on this decision.
The court held it is not bound by the BIA's interpretation and, following the overwhelming majority of courts nationally, found the BIA's interpretation incorrect. The court relied on Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369 (2024), to give the BIA's recently changed interpretation no deference, explaining that agency interpretations are only useful when they have remained consistent over time — and Yajure Hurtado departs from decades of consistent statutory interpretation.
The court's textual analysis focused on the word 'seeking' in § 1225(b)(2)(A). 'Seek' is an active verb denoting a present, ongoing effort to obtain admission. A person who entered the United States over two decades ago and has been living here ever since is not, at the time of arrest, actively seeking admission. The court adopted an analogy from another district court: someone who enters a movie theater without buying a ticket and sits through part of a film is not 'seeking admission' to the theater — they are already there.
The court concluded: 'There is simply no reasonable basis upon which this Court could conclude that Petitioner — who at the time of his arrest had been in the United States for more than two decades — is an 'alien seeking admission' subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2).' Federal courts have rejected the government's argument on this issue more than 300 times, and every district judge in the District of Minnesota to consider the question has reached the same conclusion.
Relief Granted and Denied
Amended Petition — Granted in Part
The court recommended that Respondents be ordered to provide Ramon R.C. with a bond hearing under § 1226(a) within seven (7) days of any order adopting the Report and Recommendation.
Amended Petition — Denied in Part
To the extent Ramon R.C. sought immediate release, the court recommended denial. He argued only that he was unlawfully deprived of a bond hearing, not that his detention was per se (inherently) illegal. The appropriate remedy for the violation alleged is a bond hearing, not immediate release.
Initial TRO/Preliminary Injunction Motion (Docket No. 2)
Recommended denied as moot because the Amended Motion supersedes it.
Amended TRO/Preliminary Injunction Motion (Docket No. 10) — Denied in Part
The portion seeking to prevent Respondents from transferring Ramon R.C. out of the District of Minnesota was recommended denied. The court found the single assertion offered in support — that transfer would cause loss of access to counsel and a support network — was too vague and lacked factual particularity. The court also noted that even if that harm were assumed, the anti-transfer injunction would be rendered superfluous: if the district court adopts this Report and Recommendation and orders a bond hearing, both orders would issue simultaneously, meaning the injunction would expire at the moment it took effect.
Amended TRO/Preliminary Injunction Motion — Remainder Denied as Moot
The remaining portions of the Amended TRO motion are subsumed by the bond hearing recommendation.
Procedural Next Steps
This Report and Recommendation is not directly appealable to the Eighth Circuit. Either party may file specific written objections within 14 days of being served. A party may respond to objections within 14 days of being served with them. The assigned district judge, Judge Tostrud, will then act on the recommendation.
Read the full 16-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.