Guillermo Antonio Guadarrama de Andrade v. Noem
Guillermo Antonio Guadarrama de Andrade v. Kristi Noem, Secretary, Department of Homeland Security, et al.
- Traynor
- 0:26-cv-01187
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate.
In Guadarrama de Andrade v. Noem, Judge Traynor denied reconsideration of his earlier ruling rejecting a detained asylum seeker's challenge to his detention classification.
Non-citizens detained by immigration authorities who entered the United States through a visa waiver program and have pending asylum applications, and who are seeking to challenge their detention classification under federal immigration statutes.
What happened
In Guadarrama de Andrade v. Kristi Noem, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, the petitioner is a non-citizen who entered the United States through a visa waiver program and filed an asylum application. He was detained by immigration authorities and argued that his detention was governed by a more favorable legal standard under a different section of immigration law than the government applied. The court had already denied his petition for release, and he moved the court to reconsider that decision.
The petitioner argued two main points: first, that his pending asylum application effectively preserved his lawful status; and second, that because he had entered the country lawfully, he should be classified under Section 1226 of the immigration statute — which applies to people previously admitted — rather than Section 1225, which applies to people seeking admission. He also pointed to another court case involving a person with a different immigration status (DACA) who had been treated more favorably. The court acknowledged it had made a factual error in the original ruling by stating the petitioner did not enter lawfully, but concluded that correction did not change the outcome, because his asylum application placed him in the category of someone still 'seeking admission' under Section 1225 regardless of how he entered.
Judge Daniel M. Traynor denied the motion for reconsideration. He reasoned that under federal law and Supreme Court precedent, a person present in the United States who has not been formally admitted is treated as an applicant for admission subject to Section 1225, and that a pending asylum application — which the petitioner's own receipt notice stated grants no immigration status or benefit — does not change that classification. The court also distinguished the petitioner's situation from the DACA case he cited, noting that DACA conferred a specific legal status that the pending asylum application did not.
The detailed version
- Guillermo Antonio Guadarrama de Andrade v. Noem · No. 0:26-cv-01187
- Traynor
- Feb. 20, 2026
Background
Petitioner Guillermo Antonio Guadarrama de Andrade is a non-citizen who entered the United States through a visa waiver program and subsequently filed an application for asylum. He was detained by immigration authorities. On February 19, 2026, he filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus — a legal challenge to the lawfulness of his detention — which the court denied without prejudice the same day. On the same date, he filed a motion for reconsideration of that denial.
Petitioner's Arguments
The petitioner raised two central contentions on reconsideration:
- His pending asylum application effectively froze his lawful immigration status for as long as the application remained pending, meaning he should not be treated as unlawfully present.
- Because he entered the United States lawfully through a visa waiver program (rather than overstaying a visa or entering without inspection), he should be classified for detention purposes under 8 U.S.C. § 1226 rather than §
- Section 1226(a) governs detention of non-citizens who were previously lawfully admitted but are now removable, while § 1225 governs those who 'arrive' in the United States or are present but have not been 'admitted' — i.e., applicants for admission.
The petitioner also invoked a prior ruling in Cordoba-Hernandez v. Noem, No. 26-cv-800 (D. Minn. Feb. 5, 2026), involving a DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) recipient who had been treated as lawfully present and found not removable, arguing his situation was analogous.
Court's Analysis
Acknowledged Error in Prior Order
The court acknowledged that paragraph 12 of its prior order erroneously stated the petitioner did not enter lawfully after inspection. The court corrected this factual error but held that the correction did not alter the legal conclusion.
Section 1225 vs. Section 1226 Classification
The court held that the petitioner remains an 'applicant for admission' under § 1225 because, under the Supreme Court's decision in Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281, 287 (2018), a non-citizen who is 'present' in the United States but 'has not been admitted' is treated as an applicant for admission subject to § 1225. The court emphasized that the petitioner did not overstay a visa — the circumstance that would place a person under § 1226.
Effect of Pending Asylum Application
The court rejected the argument that the pending asylum application preserves lawful status or changes the detention classification. Relying on Chen v. Almodovar, No. 1:25-cv-8350, 2025 WL 3484855 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 4, 2025), the court held that seeking asylum constitutes 'seeking admission' within the meaning of § 1225, because 'admission' under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(13)(A) is defined in terms of lawful status, not mere physical presence. The court also pointed to the petitioner's own asylum application receipt notice, which stated in bold: 'THIS NOTICE DOES NOT GRANT ANY IMMIGRATION STATUS OR BENEFIT.'
Distinction from Cordoba-Hernandez
The court distinguished the petitioner's situation from the DACA recipient in Cordoba-Hernandez. In that case, the petitioner's DACA status specifically conferred a legal designation of being treated as lawfully present and rendered him not removable. By contrast, the petitioner here has only a pending asylum application, which does not bar removal.
Judicial Role in Immigration Enforcement
The court closed by quoting Justice Kavanaugh's concurrence in Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo, 146 S. Ct. 1, 5 (2025): 'The Judiciary does not set immigration policy or decide enforcement priorities.'
Disposition
The court denied the Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. No. 9). The underlying petition for a writ of habeas corpus had previously been denied without prejudice.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.