Deicy S.L. v. Bondi

Background

Deicy S.L. filed a petition challenging her immigration detention. The opinion states that she is a native and citizen of Columbia, entered the United States without inspection in or around March 2023, and was arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers after arriving. She was later released from custody on parole under a provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Removal proceedings were initiated against her, and her application for asylum and withholding of removal remained pending. She also had a valid work permit based on that pending application.

On January 28, 2026, ICE arrested Deicy S.L. at a regularly scheduled check-in appointment in Minnesota. She remained in ICE custody. She argued that the respondents had unlawfully subjected her to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b) without the possibility of a bond hearing. She also argued that her immediate release was warranted because the respondents had not produced a warrant authorizing her arrest or detention.

District Judge Michael J. Davis had previously ordered the respondents not to remove Deicy S.L. from the District of Minnesota while the petition was pending and ordered them to return her to Minnesota if they had already removed her. A screen capture of ICE’s detainee locator system indicated that she was detained in Texas on January 31, 2026. The respondents filed a one-page response but did not provide the requested affidavits, exhibits, or legal argument addressing the lawfulness and duration of her detention.

Legal analysis

A federal court may grant detention relief when a person is confined in violation of the Constitution, federal law, or a treaty. The court explained that immigration law distinguishes between mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b) and discretionary detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). The government argued that Deicy S.L. was subject to mandatory detention under § 1225 based on recent immigration-agency guidance treating people in circumstances like hers as people seeking admission.

Judge Brisbois found no reason to depart from the many decisions rejecting that argument. The recommendation concluded that a person who had been residing in the United States for more than two years when arrested could not reasonably be treated as an “alien seeking admission” subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2). The fact that Deicy S.L. had applied for asylum did not change that conclusion.

The recommendation further concluded that the respondents had not identified any valid legal basis for Deicy S.L.’s arrest or continued detention. Detention under § 1226(a) is based on a warrant, and the respondents supplied no evidence that a warrant existed. Because the record did not establish a lawful basis for custody, the appropriate remedy was release rather than simply a bond hearing.

Recommended disposition

The Report and Recommendation recommends that Deicy S.L.’s petition be granted; that the respondents immediately release her; and that they confirm her release within 48 hours after any district-court order adopting the recommendation. It also recommends that the respondents be barred from re-detaining her under the statutory theory rejected in this proceeding unless circumstances materially change.

The recommendation also finds that the respondents violated Judge Davis’s earlier order by failing to return Deicy S.L. to Minnesota after the record showed that she was detained in Texas. It recommends that the respondents be ordered to show cause why they should not be held in civil contempt for that violation.

The document is a magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation, not a final order or judgment. It states that the usual 14-day objection period was reduced to two days, with one day to respond to any objection, because a longer period would prolong the recommended relief.