Jorge H. M. O. v. Bondi

Background

Jorge H. M. O. filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his immigration detention. The opinion states that he is a citizen of Colombia, has lived in the United States since 2022, and was detained on January 15, 2026. He alleged that immigration authorities entered his home by force without a warrant and detained him. The respondents refused to provide a bond hearing, relying on Matter of Yajure Hurtado.

Parties’ positions

Jorge H. M. O. claimed that he was entitled to a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). The respondents argued that his detention was mandatory under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2), so he was not eligible for a bond hearing. They also argued that the Minnesota court lacked jurisdiction because Jorge H. M. O. had been moved to El Paso, Texas, and asked that the matter be dismissed or transferred to the Western District of Texas.

Jurisdiction

The court had previously ruled that jurisdiction attached when federal officers apprehended Jorge H. M. O. in Minnesota and placed him in federal custody there. That earlier order also stated that a later transfer by the respondents would not eliminate jurisdiction and required them to return him to Minnesota if they had moved him.

The respondents acknowledged that Jorge H. M. O. had been moved to El Paso but used that transfer to support their jurisdiction argument instead of complying with the return directive. The court concluded that it had already decided the jurisdiction issue. It stated that the respondents’ proper way to challenge that decision was to request permission to file a reconsideration motion under the District of Minnesota’s local rules. Because no such request was filed and the court found no compelling circumstances, it recommended denying the respondents’ Motion to Dismiss.

Merits

The court relied on the reasoning in a prior related proceeding, Beltran v. Bondi, without identifying a material distinction between that case and this one. Under that reasoning, § 1226(a) governs detention of noncitizens already residing in the United States, while § 1225(b)(2) governs detention of noncitizens seeking admission. The former category involves discretionary detention and an entitlement to a bond hearing; the latter involves mandatory detention without a bond hearing.

The court concluded that the respondents had not shown why Jorge H. M. O.’s case was materially different. It therefore recommended granting the petition on the same grounds.

Recommended disposition and procedural status

The magistrate judge recommended that the petition be granted insofar as the respondents would be ordered to provide a bond hearing under § 1226(a) before an immigration judge in Minnesota within seven days after a district judge adopts the report and recommendation. It also recommended that Jorge H. M. O. be immediately released if the respondents do not provide that hearing.

The document is a Report and Recommendation, not a final district-court order or judgment. The notice states that objections were due by January 30, 2026, and responses to objections were due by February 2, 2026. It also states that the report was not directly appealable to the Eighth Circuit.