797 F.Supp.3d 970
D. Minn.2025Background
- Francisco T., a Mexican citizen who has lived in the U.S. for over a decade without legal status, was arrested by immigration authorities in Minnesota in July 2025 for being unlawfully present in the country.
- Following his arrest, Francisco was served with a Notice to Appear, initiating removal proceedings against him under 8 U.S.C. § 1229a.
- Francisco requested a bond hearing, but the Immigration Judge denied this, citing lack of jurisdiction under INA § 235(b)(2) due to a policy that classifies all entrants without inspection as “applicants for admission” subject to mandatory detention.
- He appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals and filed a habeas corpus petition in federal court, seeking a bond hearing and to prevent transfer or removal from Minnesota during the judicial process.
- The district court initially granted a temporary restraining order preventing Francisco’s removal from the District and later considered a motion for preliminary injunction to require a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a)(2)(A).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether detention is under § 1225 or § 1226 | Francisco is detained under § 1226 and eligible for a bond hearing | Respondents: § 1225 applies, requiring mandatory detention | § 1226 applies; bond hearing required |
| Plain meaning of “seeking admission” | Does not include noncitizens residing in the U.S. for years | Includes all who entered without inspection | Only those presently seeking admission |
| Impact of Laken Riley Act amendments | LRA shows Congress intended new, separate categories under § 1226(c) | Makes no practical difference; all without inspection ineligible | Interpreting § 1225 as DHS suggests would render LRA superfluous |
| Preliminary injunction factors | Loss of liberty is irreparable; public interest favors bond hearing | Government faces harm if court interferes with detention process | Petitioner satisfies all factors; relief granted |
Key Cases Cited
- Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281 (2018) (interprets scope of detention and bond eligibility under 8 U.S.C. § 1226)
- Dataphase Sys., Inc. v. C L Sys., Inc., 640 F.2d 109 (8th Cir. 1981) (sets forth the four factors for preliminary injunctions)
- United States ex rel. Claussen v. Day, 279 U.S. 398 (1929) (discusses meaning of seeking entry/admission for purposes of immigration law)
- Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (2009) (factors for injunction and public interest in immigration cases)