Jose M.P. v. Bondi

Background

Jose M.P. filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, a legal procedure for challenging unlawful detention. The opinion states that he is a citizen of Nicaragua and a resident of Minneapolis, Minnesota. He entered the United States in November 2021, has a pending asylum application, does not have a final removal order, and has had a valid work permit since 2022.

On February 3, 2026, immigration officials arrested Jose M.P. in Eden Prairie, Minnesota, without a warrant. The opinion states that he was believed to be detained at the Bishop Henry Whipple Federal Building at Fort Snelling. He argued that his detention violated the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, the Immigration and Nationality Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act. He requested immediate release or, alternatively, a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a).

The respondents filed a one-page form response asserting that they could detain him under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A). They referred the court to arguments they had made in a pending Eighth Circuit case. The court had ordered the respondents to answer and not move Jose M.P. from the District of Minnesota while the case was pending.

Court’s analysis

The court held that section 1225 applies to “applicants for admission,” including noncitizens who are present in the United States but have not been admitted or who arrive in the United States. The court concluded that Jose M.P. was not an arriving noncitizen because he had been in the United States for more than four years and had a pending asylum application.

The court therefore ruled that section 1226(a), rather than section 1225(b)(2), governed his detention. Section 1226(a) provides for discretionary release on bond by an immigration judge. The court further held that a person detained under section 1226(a) must have been served an arrest warrant before detention.

The court found no evidence that the respondents had an arrest warrant. It also noted that, after being given an opportunity to explain the actual basis for the detention and provide supporting documents, the respondents did not do so. The court concluded that Jose M.P. had been arrested without a warrant and that immediate release was the proper remedy.

Ruling

Judge Donovan W. Frank granted Jose M.P.’s petition and declared that his current detention was unlawful under the Constitution and laws of the United States. The respondents were ordered to release him immediately and provide the court with a status update confirming his release within three days.

The order directed the respondents to release Jose M.P. in Minnesota, with his personal documents and belongings, without release conditions or a tracking device, and with the clothing he was wearing or other proper winter attire. The respondents were also required to give his counsel reasonable advance notice to arrange a safe release.

The court enjoined the respondents from re-detaining Jose M.P. under the same statutory theory unless materially changed circumstances existed. The order also stated that Jose M.P. could move for attorneys’ fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act within thirty days of final judgment. Finally, the court directed the clerk to change his first name on the docket from “John” to “Jose.”