Jose L.B. v. Bondi

Background

Jose L.B. filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, asking for release from immigration detention. He alleged that his detention violated the Immigration and Nationality Act, the Fifth Amendment’s due-process protections, the Fourth Amendment, and certain statutes and regulations.

The opinion states that Jose is a citizen of Guatemala who entered the United States without inspection around 2022 or 2023 as an unaccompanied minor. Immigration authorities briefly detained him, transferred him to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, and that agency released him to the care of his uncle. Although the Government said Jose was processed for a Notice to Appear, the charging document was never filed in immigration court, so Jose was never placed in removal proceedings.

Jose later became an adult and lived in Faribault, Minnesota. The opinion states that, apart from petty misdemeanor traffic violations, he had no criminal record. Immigration and Customs Enforcement detained him in March 2026. The Government submitted an administrative arrest warrant dated March 27, 2026, citing 8 U.S.C. § 1226, which permits discretionary detention while the Government decides whether a person should be removed.

The detention authority

The Government did not argue that mandatory detention based on certain criminal offenses under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) applied to Jose. Instead, its warrant invoked § 1226(a). Under that provision, the Government may arrest and detain a person on a warrant while removal is considered, subject to possible release on bond or conditional parole.

In its response to the petition, however, the Government argued that Jose was subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A). That provision applies to certain applicants for admission and requires detention when an immigration officer determines that the person is not clearly entitled to admission. The Government relied on an Eighth Circuit decision, Avila v. Bondi, but Judge Bullard concluded that Avila involved materially different facts.

Judge Bullard recommended rejecting the Government’s later reliance on § 1225(b)(2). The report applied the administrative-law principle that an agency must defend its action based on the reasons it gave when it acted, rather than relying on a new explanation developed during litigation. Because the Government’s warrant identified § 1226 as the basis for Jose’s detention, the report treated the detention as one under § 1226(a).

Problems with the warrant

The report next considered whether the appropriate remedy was a bond hearing or immediate release. Although a person detained under § 1226(a) ordinarily may seek review before an Immigration Judge, Judge Bullard found that the warrant was invalid based on facial errors and unexplained discrepancies.

The opinion identifies several problems. Jose alleged that he was arrested around March 26 and was not given a warrant at the time, while the submitted warrant was dated March 27. The warrant listed Rice County as the place of service, while another Government record stated that ICE arrested Jose at Olmsted County Jail. The certificate of service stated that the warrant was read to Jose in Spanish, but the interpreter’s name was listed as “null.” The Government’s declaration did not explain these discrepancies or provide information about when, how, or by whom the warrant was created and served.

The report also noted that the Government repeatedly said it had served Jose with a Notice to Appear but did not submit that document to the record. The earlier Notice to Appear connected to Jose’s entry as an unaccompanied minor had never been filed in immigration court. Relying on reasoning from other cases, Judge Bullard recommended finding that the absence of a corresponding Notice to Appear also invalidated the warrant.

Recommendation and unresolved claims

Judge Bullard recommended that the petition be granted, that the Government be ordered to release Jose immediately, and that the Government be ordered to file a docket update confirming his release. The report did not decide Jose’s remaining constitutional or regulatory arguments because it found that the invalid warrant required release.

This document is a magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation, not a final district-court order or judgment. The notice states that it was not directly appealable to the Eighth Circuit and that objections were due by May 4, 2026, with responses due by May 7, 2026.