Victor P. v. Noem
- Michael Davis
- 0:26-cv-00430
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 6
Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate.
In Victor P. v. Noem, Judge Elkins recommends granting Victor’s petition because he is entitled to a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a).
Victor P. and similarly situated noncitizens who are already present or residing in the United States, are detained by immigration authorities, and seek bond hearings under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a).
What happened
In Victor P. v. Kristi Noem, et al., Victor P. challenged his immigration detention, arguing that federal law and constitutional due process required a bond hearing. He entered the United States without inspection in January 2021 and was arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement in December 2025.
The parties disagreed about which detention law applied. The respondents argued that Victor was subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2), while Victor argued that 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) applied and required a bond hearing because he had already been living in the United States.
Judge Shannon G. Elkins recommended granting Victor’s petition and providing him a bond hearing as soon as possible in Minnesota. The recommendation is not a final order, and the parties may file objections within the time allowed by the court’s rules.
The detailed version
- Victor P. v. Noem · No. 0:26-cv-00430
- Michael Davis
- Jan. 25, 2026
Background
Victor P. filed a verified petition challenging his detention by federal immigration authorities. He stated that his detention violated the Immigration and Nationality Act, the Fifth Amendment’s due-process protections, and the Administrative Procedure Act. He requested a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226 and release from federal custody.
The opinion states that Victor is a citizen of El Salvador who entered the United States without inspection in January 2021. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers arrested him on December 22, 2025. He was being held at the Freeborn County Jail in Albert Lea, Minnesota.
United States District Judge Michael J. Davis issued an order requiring the respondents to answer the petition and preventing them from removing Victor from Minnesota until a final decision on the petition. An immigration judge had denied Victor’s request for release, stating that he was properly categorized as an applicant for admission and that the immigration court therefore lacked authority to release him.
Legal dispute
The dispute concerned which of two federal detention statutes applied to Victor. Section 1225(b)(2) requires detention in certain circumstances for noncitizens treated as seeking admission. Section 1226(a) provides a discretionary detention framework and allows a bond hearing.
The respondents argued that section 1225(b)(2) applied because Victor entered without inspection, even though he had already been living in the United States for several years. Victor argued that section 1226(a) governed his detention and entitled him to a bond hearing.
The respondents did not argue that Victor had a criminal history or that another exception required mandatory detention under section 1226(c). They relied on their interpretation that section 1225(b)(2) applied. The opinion states that this interpretation had been rejected repeatedly by judges in the District of Minnesota and by courts elsewhere, including the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
Recommendation
Magistrate Judge Shannon G. Elkins recommended that Victor’s petition be granted. The recommendation concluded that section 1226(a), rather than section 1225(b), governs the detention of noncitizens who are already present or residing in the United States, such as Victor. The recommended relief was a bond hearing at the earliest opportunity in the District of Minnesota, where witnesses and evidence were likely to be found.
The court did not address Victor’s alternative argument that he was entitled to relief as a member of a class in an earlier related case because it found that he was entitled to a bond hearing under section 1226. The report and recommendation is not a final order or judgment and is not directly appealable to the Eighth Circuit. The parties could file specific written objections within the period stated in the notice.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.