Fanny U. v. Pamela Bondi, Kristi Noem, Todd M. Lyons, and David Easterwood

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Fanny U.,1 Case No. 26-CV-262 (MJD/JFD) Petitioner, v. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Pamela Bondi, Kristi Noem, Todd M.

Lyons, and David Easterwood, Respondents.

Petitioner Fanny U. has filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Dkt. No. 1), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The petition has been referred to the undersigned for the issuance of a report and recommendation. Petitioner claims she is being denied access to a bond hearing to which she is entitled under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). Respondents counter that Petitioner is not eligible for a bond hearing because her detention is mandatory under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). For the reasons set forth in Beltran v. Bondi, No. 25-04604 (MJD/DTS), 2025 WL 3719856, at *1 (D. Minn. Dec. 23, 2025), the Court recommends that the petition be granted.

Petitioner is a citizen of Ecuador. (Pet. ¶ 12.) She has lived in the United States continuously since August 22, 2023, and has asserted a claim for asylum on behalf of herself and her children. (Pet. ¶¶ 12–13.) Petitioner was detained by Respondents on This District has adopted a policy of using only the first name and last initial of any nongovernmental parties in immigration cases.

January 13, 2026. (Pet. ¶ 18.) Respondents have refused to provide her with a bond hearing, citing Matter of Yajure Hurtado, 29 I. & N. Dec. 216 (BIA 2025). Petitioner has no criminal history. (Pet. ¶ 16.) On the date she filed her petition, Petitioner was held in ICE custody in Minnesota. (Pet. ¶ 23.)

In a one-page response to the petition,2 Respondents state that this case is similar to Avila v. Bondi, No. 25-cv-3741 (JRT/SGE), 2025 WL 2976539 (D. Minn. Oct. 21, 2025), appeal filed, No. 25-3248 (8th Cir. Nov. 10, 2025). Avila held that a noncitizen who was already present in the United States when detained is not subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A); rather, § 1226 applies, and the petitioner is entitled to a bond hearing under § 1226(a). Avila, 2025 WL 2976539, at *7.

The Honorable Michael J. Davis, who is the United States District Judge assigned to this case, reached the same conclusion in Beltran v. Bondi, No. 25-04604 (MJD/DTS), 2025 WL 3719856, at *1 (D. Minn. Dec. 23, 2025): that § 1226(a) governs the detention of noncitizens who are already residing in the United States, such as Petitioner—not § 1225(b)(2), which governs the detention of noncitizens seeking admission into the United States. Beltran, 2025 WL 3719856, at *3. If seeking admission, a noncitizen is subject to mandatory detention and not entitled to a bond hearing; if already residing in the United States, detention is discretionary, and the noncitizen is entitled to a bond hearing. Id. Respondents have not shown how this case is materially distinguishable from Beltran.

2 Respondents were ordered to file a response to Petitioner’s Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (see Dkt. No. 7), but they filed a response to the Petition instead (see Dkt. No. 8). The Court therefore proceeds directly to the Petition in this Report and Recommendation.

The Court finds that Petitioner is a noncitizen present in the United States who is detained pursuant to § 1226 and thus entitled to a bond hearing. She is not an applicant for admission and thus is not subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b). The Court therefore recommends that the petition be granted. The parties’ attention is directed to the shorter than usual deadlines for filing objections to this Report and Recommendation and for filing responses to those objections, set forth in the “Notice” below.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 1. Petitioner Fanny U.’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Dkt. No. 1) be GRANTED insofar as Respondents be ordered to hold a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) before an immigration judge in Minnesota within seven days of an order adopting this Report and Recommendation; 2. Petitioner’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (Dkt. No. 2) be DENIED AS MOOT; and 3. If Respondents do not provide Petitioner with a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), Petitioner be immediately released from detention.

Dated: January 23, 2026 s/ John F. Docherty JOHN F. DOCHERTY United States Magistrate Judge NOTICE Filing Objections: This Report and Recommendation is not an order or judgment of the District Court and is therefore not appealable directly to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. Under D. Minn. LR 72.2(b)(1), “[a] party may file and serve specific written objections to a magistrate judge’s proposed findings and recommendations within 14 days after being served with a copy of the recommended disposition, unless the court sets a different deadline.” (Emphasis added.) The Court modifies the deadline such that objections are due on or before January 26, 2026. Responses to objections are due on or before January 28, 2026. All objections and responses must comply with the word or line limits set forth in Local Rule 72.2(c).