Bondi v. Bondi

Background

Henry A. V. P. filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his immigration detention. The petition alleged that Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers arrested him on February 3, 2026, while he was driving to work. According to the petition, officers boxed in and rammed his car at a stoplight, arrested him without a warrant, and did not provide a bond hearing.

Henry A. V. P. is identified in the opinion as a citizen of El Salvador who has lived in the United States since 2014. He has a pending derivative U visa application and no final removal order. A derivative U visa is a humanitarian visa available to certain crime victims and some family members of crime victims.

The respondents argued that Henry A. V. P.’s detention was mandatory under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2), so he was not entitled to a bond hearing. They also argued that the Minnesota court lacked jurisdiction because Henry A. V. P. was being held in Karnes, Texas, and asked that the case be transferred to the Western District of Texas.

Jurisdiction and transfer

Judge Davis had previously ruled in this case that the Minnesota court’s habeas jurisdiction attached when Henry A. V. P. was apprehended in Minnesota. Judge Davis also ruled that the government could not defeat jurisdiction by moving him to another state and had ordered the respondents not to move him from Minnesota or to return him there if they had already moved him.

The magistrate judge concluded that the respondents’ jurisdiction argument was procedurally improper because it ignored those earlier rulings and relied on the respondents’ alleged violation of the court’s order. The opinion stated that the proper way to challenge the earlier jurisdiction ruling would have been to request permission to file a motion for reconsideration under the District of Minnesota’s local rules. No such request was filed, and the court identified no compelling circumstances supporting reconsideration. The report therefore recommended denying the respondents’ motion to dismiss.

Detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225

The report relied on Judge Davis’s reasoning in a prior unrelated case, Beltran v. Bondi. That reasoning treated 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), rather than § 1225(b)(2), as governing detention of noncitizens already residing in the United States. Under that view, detention is discretionary and the person is entitled to a bond hearing. Section 1225(b)(2), by contrast, applies to noncitizens seeking admission and requires mandatory detention without a bond hearing.

The respondents relied on a Fifth Circuit decision adopting the government’s interpretation that a person’s status as an applicant for admission does not depend on where or how the person entered the United States. The magistrate judge stated that the Fifth Circuit decision was not binding here and concluded that the government’s interpretation improperly eliminated the distinction between mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2) and discretionary detention with a bond hearing under § 1226(a). The report recommended granting the petition on that basis.

Warrantless arrest

The report also concluded that, even if § 1226(a) applied, the detention could not be legally justified without a valid arrest warrant. The respondents pointed to a Form I-200 as the arrest warrant. The opinion described that document as an internal Immigration and Customs Enforcement document and stated that it can issue only at the same time as, or before, a notice to appear.

The Form I-200 was dated February 3, 2026, the day of the arrest. The notice to appear was not served until February 6, 2026—three days after the Form I-200 and after Henry A. V. P. had been detained and transferred to Texas. The report concluded that the Form I-200 did not provide a valid basis for the arrest and detention. It further stated that the government could not create a valid basis after the arrest and that release, rather than a bond hearing, was the appropriate remedy when detention lacked a lawful basis.

Recommended disposition and fees

The report recommended that Henry A. V. P.’s petition be GRANTED in full and that he be immediately returned to Minnesota and released from detention without conditions. It also recommended that the respondents’ motion to dismiss be denied.

The report discussed potential costs and reasonable attorney’s fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act. It stated that any motion seeking those costs and fees should be filed within 30 days after entry of judgment, subject to the statutory exceptions for a substantially justified government position or special circumstances.

This document is a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, not a final order or judgment of the District Court. The notice required objections by February 13, 2026, and responses to objections by February 16, 2026.