F.P.D. v. Brott
Fernando F.P.D. v. Joel Brott, Sheriff, Sherburne County, MN, Samuel Olson, Director of St. Paul Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Kristi Noem, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, and Pamela Bondi, Attorney General of the United States, in their official capacities
- Eric Tostrud
- 0:25-cv-04455
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 6
In Fernando F.P.D. v. Joel Brott et al., Judge Tostrud granted an Ecuadorian immigrant's petition challenging his detention classification, declaring that he must be treated as a discretionary detainee entitled to a bond hearing rather than a mandatory detainee, and ordering immigration officials to provide that hearing.
Noncitizens detained by ICE in the District of Minnesota who entered the United States without authorization and have been living in the country for an extended period, but who have been classified as mandatory detainees under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) (as applicants for admission) rather than as discretionary detainees under 8 U.S.C. § 1226 (as persons already present in the country). Such individuals may be affected by this ruling's holding that they are entitled to a bond hearing.
What happened
In Fernando F.P.D. v. Joel Brott, Sheriff, Sherburne County, MN, et al., Fernando F.P.D. is an Ecuadorian citizen who entered the United States without authorization in November 2019 and was arrested by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on November 22, 2025, in St. Anthony, Minnesota. He has been held at Sherburne County Jail while facing immigration proceedings. Fernando argued that immigration authorities wrongly classified him under a law (8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)) that requires mandatory detention for people 'seeking admission' to the country, when he should instead be classified under a different law (8 U.S.C. § 1226) that applies to people already living in the country and gives them the right to a bond hearing where a judge can consider releasing them.
The government argued that the federal court lacked the power to hear the case because of laws that strip federal courts of authority over certain immigration matters, and also argued that Fernando had not gone through the proper administrative channels before coming to court. The government further argued that Fernando's classification as a mandatory detainee was correct under the law. Fernando countered that these jurisdiction-stripping laws do not apply to the narrow question of which detention category he falls into, and that administrative exhaustion was not required.
Judge Tostrud sided with Fernando on both the jurisdictional question and the merits. The court found that the laws cited by the government to block federal court review do not apply to challenges about detention classification, consistent with numerous other decisions from the same district. On the merits, because Fernando had lived in the United States for approximately six years — and because his paperwork identified him as 'an alien present in the United States who has not been admitted or paroled' rather than an 'arriving alien' — the court declared that mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2) does not apply to him. Judge Tostrud ordered immigration officials to provide Fernando with a bond hearing under § 1226. The court declined to order his immediate release or to address a separate request to block the government from filing a form that would stay any bond.
The detailed version
Case: Fernando F.P.D. v. Joel Brott, Sheriff, Sherburne County, MN; Samuel Olson, Director of St. Paul Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Kristi Noem, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security; and Pamela Bondi, Attorney General of the United States. File No. 25-cv-4455 (ECT/ECW). Judge Eric C. Tostrud, United States District Court, District of Minnesota. Opinion and Order dated December 17, 2025.
BACKGROUND: Fernando F.P.D. is an Ecuadorian citizen who entered the United States without inspection on November 26, 2019, and has lived here without authorization since then — approximately six years. He is currently facing a state criminal charge of disorderly conduct under Minnesota law. On November 22, 2025, ICE arrested him in St. Anthony, Minnesota. ICE served him with a Warrant for Arrest of Alien under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1226 and 1357, and a Notice to Appear in immigration court. The Notice to Appear described Fernando as 'an alien present in the United States who has not been admitted or paroled' and did not check the box for 'arriving alien.' Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) officers classified Fernando as 'subject to detention as an applicant for admission' under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1225(a)(1) and (b)(2). He has been detained at Sherburne County Jail in Elk River, Minnesota, and was scheduled for a Master Calendar Hearing before Immigration Judge M. Audrey Carr on December 16, 2025, with no outcome reported in the record.
LEGAL FRAMEWORK: The central dispute involves which detention statute applies. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2), noncitizens 'seeking admission' are subject to mandatory detention — meaning no bond hearing is available. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1226, noncitizens already present in the country are subject to discretionary detention — meaning they are entitled to a bond hearing where an immigration judge decides whether to release them. Fernando filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus (a court order challenging the legality of his detention) under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, arguing he was misclassified under § 1225(b)(2) and should fall under § 1226. He alleged violations of the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause, 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). He sought: a declaration that his detention is unlawful; an order directing respondents to hold a bond hearing and release him; injunctions preventing transfer out of the District of Minnesota before a bond hearing; an injunction preventing the Department of Homeland Security from filing Form EOIR-43 (a form that stays, i.e., pauses, a bond); and attorneys' fees and costs.
JURISDICTION: Respondents argued the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction (the authority to hear the case at all) under three provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1252: subsections (a)(5) and (b)(9), which strip federal district courts of jurisdiction over challenges to removal orders, and subsection (g), which strips jurisdiction over DHS decisions to commence proceedings, adjudicate cases, or execute removal orders. Respondents also argued Fernando had not exhausted his administrative remedies (i.e., pursued all available relief within the immigration agency system before going to federal court). The court rejected both arguments, following a consistent line of decisions from the District of Minnesota. It held that a habeas challenge to detention classification — the narrow question of whether a noncitizen is subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2) or discretionary detention under § 1226 — does not fall within the categories of claims subject to these jurisdiction-stripping provisions. The court also held, following Eliseo A.A. v. Olson, No. 25-cv-3381 (D. Minn. 2025), that administrative exhaustion was not required as a prerequisite to federal court review in this type of case.
MERITS: On the merits of the detention classification question, the court found Fernando had been misclassified. Section 1225(b)(2) applies to applicants 'seeking admission'; § 1226 applies to aliens 'already in the country.' Fernando entered the United States in November 2019 — approximately six years before his arrest. His Notice to Appear identified him as 'an alien present in the United States who has not been admitted or paroled,' and the 'arriving alien' box was not checked. The court found these facts dispositive and held that Fernando's detention must be governed by § 1226, not § 1225(b)(2). The court noted that as of December 17, 2025, the only federal court of appeals to have ruled on this question — the Seventh Circuit in Castañon-Nava v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec., No. 25-3050 (7th Cir. Dec. 11, 2025) — reached the same conclusion.
RESPONDENTS' APA ARGUMENT: The court found it unnecessary to reach the government's APA argument given the ruling on the statutory classification issue.
SECTION 1226(c) NOTE: Section 1226(c) provides for mandatory detention of certain noncitizens who have committed specified crimes. Fernando faces a misdemeanor charge, but the government did not argue that he falls into any § 1226(c) category, so the court did not address it.
ORDER: The court granted the habeas petition as follows: (1) Declared that Fernando is not subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2), and is instead subject to detention, if at all, under the discretionary provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1226. (2) Enjoined (ordered) Respondents from denying Fernando a bond hearing on the basis that § 1225(b)(2) applies, and ordered that Respondents provide a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a)(2)(A). The court declined to order Fernando's immediate release, declined to address the request for an injunction against filing Form EOIR-43 because the parties had not briefed it, and directed that judgment be entered accordingly. Respondent Joel Brott (Sherburne County Sheriff) appeared but did not otherwise participate in the proceedings.
Reviewer note from the AI+
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.