Joana J. v. Pamela Jo Bondi

Background

Joana J. filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, a procedure used to challenge unlawful custody. The petition concerns her detention in immigration-removal proceedings. The respondents are Pamela Jo Bondi, Kristi Noem, Todd Lyons, David Easterwood, and Eric Tollefson, sued in their official capacities.

Joana J. is a citizen of Haiti. According to the petition, she entered the United States on or about May 25, 2024, after receiving Haitian Humanitarian Parole. That status expired on June 12, 2025. She filed an application for asylum and withholding of removal on August 12, 2025, and the asylum application remained pending. She was issued a Notice to Appear and placed in full removal proceedings on November 20, 2025. She had been detained at the Kandiyohi County Jail since that date.

The parties’ positions

Joana J. alleged that the government treated her as an “applicant for admission” subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225. She argued that this classification was incorrect because she had entered the United States more than a year earlier on humanitarian parole that had been approved before her entry. She contended that 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) governed instead and requested release or a custody-redetermination hearing under that statute.

The federal respondents argued that her detention was governed by mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1)(B)(ii), which applies in specified circumstances to an arriving noncitizen who has an asylum interview and receives a credible-fear determination. They also cited § 1225(b)(2) and argued that her pending asylum application meant she was seeking admission. The report noted that the respondents’ filing described Joana J. using incorrect pronouns and facts that did not match the petition or its exhibits. It also noted that the respondents referred to a declaration that was not filed and submitted no exhibits supporting their opposition.

Analysis

The report concluded that the record did not show that Joana J. had received an asylum interview or a credible-fear determination. It also concluded that she was not an arriving noncitizen because she had entered the United States on or about May 25, 2024, more than a year and a half before the report. The respondents therefore had not established that § 1225(b)(1)(B)(ii) governed her detention.

The report further concluded that filing an asylum application did not make Joana J. an arriving noncitizen or a person seeking admission. The court declined to follow the contrary decision cited by the respondents and referred to prior related decisions reaching the same conclusion.

The report also rejected § 1225(b)(2) as a basis for detention, concluding that Joana J. was not an applicant for admission or seeking admission. It then considered § 1226(a), which permits detention on a warrant issued by the Attorney General. The report explained that a warrant is a necessary condition for discretionary detention under that statute. Joana J. contended that no warrant had been issued, and the respondents did not argue or show otherwise. The report therefore concluded that the respondents had not identified a valid statutory basis for her detention.

Recommended disposition

Judge John F. Docherty recommended that Joana J.’s habeas petition be granted, that the respondents be ordered to immediately release her from custody, and that they be ordered to file a notice confirming her release within 24 hours after any order adopting the report and recommendation.

The document is a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, not an order or judgment of the district court. It states that it is not directly appealable to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The deadline for objections was modified to February 6, 2026, with responses due February 9, 2026.