Ixchell I. L. S. v. Bondi

Background

Ixchell I. L. S. filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on behalf of herself and her two minor children. The opinion states that the petitioners are citizens of Venezuela and had lived in the United States since 2024. Ixchell was detained on January 29, 2026, when she reported to immigration authorities. According to the petition, immigration officials contacted the children’s school, threatened to raid it, and had the children brought to immigration authorities. The children were detained and eventually moved with their mother to Texas.

The petitioners alleged that respondents refused to provide a bond hearing. They relied on 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), which the opinion describes as governing discretionary detention for noncitizens already residing in the United States. Respondents argued that 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) applied instead, making detention mandatory and eliminating eligibility for a bond hearing.

Jurisdiction and Motion to Dismiss

Before this report and recommendation, Judge Michael J. Davis had ruled that the Minnesota court’s habeas jurisdiction attached when Ixchell was apprehended in Minnesota. He also ruled that jurisdiction was not defeated by a later transfer to another state and that the government could not determine the judicial forum through its own decision to move a detainee. Judge Davis had ordered respondents not to move the petitioners from Minnesota and, if they had already been moved, to return them immediately.

Respondents challenged only jurisdiction and argued that the case belonged in the Western District of Texas because the petitioners were being held in Texas. The magistrate judge concluded that this was procedurally improper because respondents had not requested permission to seek reconsideration of Judge Davis’s jurisdiction ruling. The report and recommendation states that respondents’ argument effectively acknowledged that they had violated the order requiring the petitioners to remain in Minnesota or be returned there.

The report and recommendation therefore recommends denying respondents’ motion to dismiss. It also recommends ordering respondents to show cause—meaning explain to the court—why they should not be held in contempt for violating Judge Davis’s January 30, 2026 order.

Bond Hearing and Recommended Disposition

The report relies on Beltran v. Bondi, in which Judge Davis determined that § 1226(a), rather than § 1225(b)(2), governs detention of noncitizens already residing in the United States. Under the reasoning described in the opinion, a person seeking admission may face mandatory detention without a bond hearing, while a person already residing in the United States may be entitled to a bond hearing because the detention is discretionary. The report states that respondents did not show that this case was materially different from Beltran.

The report and recommendation recommends that the petition be granted insofar as respondents must provide Ixchell and her children with a bond hearing under § 1226(a) before an immigration judge in Minnesota within seven days after a district judge adopts the recommendation. It further recommends that, if respondents do not provide the hearing, the petitioners be immediately released from detention. It separately recommends denial of respondents’ motion to dismiss and an order to show cause concerning contempt.

The opinion emphasizes that the document is a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, not a final district-court order or judgment. It states that objections were due by February 5, 2026, and responses to objections by February 6, 2026. The report was not directly appealable to the Eighth Circuit.