P. v. Samuel J. Olson
Victor Hugo D. P. v. Samuel J. Olson, Field Office Director of Enforcement and Removal Operations, St. Paul Field Office, Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Kristi Noem, in her official capacity as Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Todd Lyons, in his official capacity as acting director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Pam Bondi, in her official capacity as Attorney General of the United States; Joel Brott, Sherburne County Sheriff
- Laura Provinzino
- 0:25-cv-04593
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 9
In Victor Hugo D. P. v. Samuel J. Olson et al., Judge Provinzino granted a petition for court-ordered release review (habeas corpus), ruling that the federal government must provide Victor Hugo D. P. — a Mexican national held by immigration authorities — with a bond hearing within 7 days because he is entitled to that hearing under federal immigration law and is not subject to mandatory detention.
Noncitizens (non-U.S. citizens) who are already living in the United States without legal status and have been arrested and detained by ICE pending removal proceedings, particularly those who have been denied a bond hearing by an immigration judge based on the BIA's decision in Matter of Yajure Hurtado. This ruling directly affects Victor Hugo D. P. and reflects a broader trend in federal courts ordering bond hearings for similarly situated individuals.
What happened
In Victor Hugo D. P. v. Samuel J. Olson et al. (Case No. 25-cv-4593), Victor Hugo D. P., a citizen of Mexico who has lived in the United States without legal status for nearly twenty years, was arrested by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on November 18, 2025, and has been held in federal immigration detention ever since. After an immigration judge denied his request for a bond hearing — relying on a recent Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision called Matter of Yajure Hurtado, which concluded that people in his situation must be held without the possibility of a bond hearing — Victor Hugo D. P. filed a petition in federal district court asking a judge to order the government to give him that hearing.
The central legal dispute was which immigration detention law applies to Victor Hugo D. P.: one law (8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)) that requires mandatory detention with no bond hearing for noncitizens 'seeking admission' into the United States, or another law (8 U.S.C. § 1226(a)) that allows for a bond hearing for noncitizens already present in the country. The government argued that because Victor Hugo D. P. stated he wanted to remain in the United States if released on bond, he should be considered someone 'seeking admission.' The court rejected that argument, explaining that 'seeking admission' means physically trying to enter the United States from outside — not trying to stay in the country while already here. The court also noted that accepting the government's reading would mean virtually no detained noncitizen could ever qualify for a bond hearing, effectively eliminating a hearing process that Congress explicitly wrote into the law.
Judge Provinzino granted the habeas petition and ordered the government to provide Victor Hugo D. P. with a bond hearing within 7 days. The judge declined to order his immediate release, finding that his detention itself is not automatically unlawful — only his being denied a bond hearing was. If the government fails to hold the bond hearing within 7 days, the order requires his immediate release. The judge also denied Victor Hugo D. P.'s separate motion for a temporary restraining order as moot, since the habeas petition provided the relief he needed.
The detailed version
- Victor Hugo D. P. v. Samuel J. Olson et al., No. 25-cv-4593 (LMP/DTS)
- Laura M. Provinzino, United States District Judge
- December 19, 2025
Background
Petitioner Victor Hugo D. P. is a native and citizen of Mexico who has resided in the United States without lawful immigration status for approximately twenty years, has no criminal history, lives with his partner (a lawful permanent resident) and stepson (a U.S. citizen), and had no prior contact with ICE before November 2025. On November 18, 2025, ICE arrested him and placed him in immigration detention pending removal proceedings. He moved before an immigration judge for a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), which governs detention of noncitizens already present in the United States and allows for individualized bond determinations. The immigration judge denied that motion, citing Matter of Yajure Hurtado, 29 I&N Dec. 216 (B.I.A. 2025), a recent BIA decision holding that noncitizens unlawfully present in the United States are subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) — the provision governing 'applicants for admission' — and therefore immigration judges lack authority to conduct bond hearings for such individuals.
Petition and Prior Precedent
On December 11, 2025, Victor Hugo D. P. filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus (a court challenge to the legality of one's detention) along with a motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO), seeking either immediate release or an order compelling the government to provide a bond hearing. The court noted that it had already ruled on the identical legal question in Roberto M. F. v. Olson, No. 25-cv-4456 (D. Minn. Dec. 9, 2025), and that it and nearly every other federal court to address the issue had rejected Yajure Hurtado and held that § 1226(a) — not § 1225(b)(2) — governs detained noncitizens already present in the country. The court ordered the government to respond within three days and to articulate any good-faith factual or legal distinction from Roberto M. F.
Government's Arguments
The government made two primary arguments. First, it reasserted that Yajure Hurtado was correctly decided and asked the court to reconsider Roberto M. F. The court declined. Second, the government offered two factual distinctions: (1) Victor Hugo D. P. had never taken affirmative steps to adjust his immigration status (unlike Roberto M. F.), and (2) Victor Hugo D. P. had affirmatively stated he intended to remain in the United States if released on bond — which, the government argued (relying on Melgar v. Bondi, No. 8:25-cv-555 (D. Neb. Dec. 5, 2025), a minority-view decision), made him an 'applicant for admission' subject to mandatory detention.
Court's Analysis
The court rejected both factual distinctions. As to the first, the government offered no explanation why never having sought to adjust status is legally relevant to the question of which detention statute applies, and the court saw none. As to the second, the court rejected Melgar's reasoning as 'atextual.' The court explained that under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 'admission' is defined as 'the lawful entry of [an] alien into the United States after inspection and authorization by an immigration officer,' 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(13), and that 'entry' has long been understood as the physical act of 'coming from outside' into the United States. See United States ex rel. Claussen v. Day, 279 U.S. 398, 401 (1929). Thus, 'seeking admission' means presently seeking physical entry into the country — not seeking to obtain legal status or to remain in the country after already being present. The court further noted that the INA's definition of 'application for admission' (referring to applications for physical entry, not visa applications) confirmed this reading. The court also highlighted the absurdity of the government's position: under its logic, any detained noncitizen who agreed to voluntary departure would forfeit a bond hearing by leaving, and any who stated a desire to remain would forfeit a bond hearing by 'seeking admission' — meaning no one would ever qualify for a bond hearing, rendering § 1226(a) a nullity in violation of the rule that courts must give effect to every part of a statute.
Relief Granted
The court granted the habeas petition. It declined to order immediate release, consistent with its approach in Roberto M. F., because Victor Hugo D. P.'s detention was not per se illegal — only his being denied a bond hearing was unlawful. The court ordered the government to provide him a bond hearing under § 1226(a) within 7 days of the order (by approximately December 26, 2025), with a status update to the court within 8 days. If no bond hearing is held within 7 days, he must be immediately released. The TRO motion was denied as moot because the habeas petition provided the necessary relief.
Reviewer note from the AI+
Read the full 9-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.