N.A.M. v. Noem
N.A.M. v. Kristi Noem, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security; U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Pamela Bondi, U.S. Attorney General; Todd Lyons, Acting Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Immigration and Customs Enforcement; David Easterwood, Acting Director, St. Paul Field Office Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Joel Brott, Sheriff of Sherburne County
- John Tunheim
- 0:25-cv-04737
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 5
In N.A.M. v. Kristi Noem, Judge Tunheim granted a petition for court-ordered release review (habeas corpus) filed by a Salvadoran immigrant detained by ICE, ruling that he is entitled to a bond hearing within 7 days because his detention is governed by the immigration statute that allows bond hearings, not the statute the government claimed applies.
Noncitizens (immigrants without legal admission status) detained by ICE in the District of Minnesota who have been arrested while already present in the United States and are seeking bond hearings. Also relevant to immigration attorneys, ICE officials, and immigration judges in this district handling similar detention cases.
What happened
In N.A.M. v. Kristi Noem, a man identified only as N.A.M. — a citizen of El Salvador who entered the United States in 2005 without inspection — was arrested by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in November 2025 at a relative's home in Lake Elmo, Minnesota. ICE charged him as removable from the country and detained him at the Sherburne County Jail in Elk River, Minnesota. N.A.M. filed a petition asking the court to declare his continued detention without any chance to argue for his release at a bond hearing unlawful.
The central legal dispute was which federal immigration detention law applied to N.A.M. The government argued that he was subject to a provision (8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)) that does not entitle a detainee to a bond hearing. N.A.M. argued that a different provision (8 U.S.C. § 1226) applied — one that does allow a bond hearing where an immigration judge considers whether the person is a danger to the community or a flight risk. The court noted that N.A.M.'s own Notice to Appear from ICE described him as already present in the United States without admission, which the court found legally significant in determining which detention statute applied.
Judge Tunheim, relying on two of his own prior rulings in similar cases, concluded that N.A.M.'s detention is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1226, not § 1225(b)(2), and granted N.A.M.'s petition. The court ordered that a bond hearing must be held within 7 days, prohibited the government from moving or deporting N.A.M. out of the District of Minnesota before that hearing, and stated that if no bond hearing is held within the deadline, N.A.M. must be immediately released. The court also granted N.A.M.'s request to proceed under a pseudonym because he is a victim and witness in a state criminal investigation and fears retaliation.
The detailed version
Case: N.A.M. v. Kristi Noem, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, et al., Civil No. 25-4737 (JRT/EMB), United States District Court, District of Minnesota. Judge: John R. Tunheim, United States District Judge. Date: December 29, 2025.
Background Petitioner N.A.M. is a citizen of El Salvador who entered the United States without inspection in June 2005. On November 3, 2025, ICE officers arrested him while assisting state and local law enforcement in executing a state search warrant at the residence of an extended family member in Lake Elmo, Minnesota. ICE issued N.A.M. a Notice to Appear (Form I-862), charging him as removable under two provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA): § 212(a)(6)(A)(i) (present in the United States without being admitted or paroled) and § 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) (not in possession of a valid entry document). He was detained at the Sherburne County Jail in Elk River, Minnesota.
On December 22, 2025, N.A.M. filed a Verified Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus — a court challenge to the lawfulness of his detention. He argued that his continued detention without a bond hearing violated federal law. He requested a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within 7 days. The court issued an order to show cause requiring the government to respond by December 24, 2025, and the government filed its response.
Legal Issue: Which Detention Statute Applies? The government (Respondents) argued that N.A.M. was subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2), which applies to 'applicants for admission' and does not provide a right to a bond hearing. Under this provision, the government contended, N.A.M. had no entitlement to seek release on bond.
N.A.M. countered that 8 U.S.C. § 1226 governed his detention. Section 1226(a) permits ICE to detain noncitizens pending removal proceedings but also entitles them to a bond hearing before an immigration judge, at which the government must justify continued detention by showing the person is a danger to the community or a flight risk.
Court's Analysis and Ruling Judge Tunheim found that the legal questions raised by N.A.M.'s petition were controlled by the same analysis he applied in two earlier cases: Herrera Avila v. Bondi, No. 25-3741 (D. Minn. Oct. 21, 2025), and Romero Santuario v. Bondi, No. 25-4296 (D. Minn. Dec. 2, 2025). The court noted that the factual record demonstrated N.A.M. was arrested while already present in the United States — a fact confirmed by his own Notice to Appear, which described him as 'present in the United States without being admitted or paroled' under INA § 212(a)(6)(A)(i). Relying on its prior reasoning in those cases, the court held that it had jurisdiction over the petition and that § 1226, not § 1225(b)(2), governed N.A.M.'s detention.
Orders Issued Judge Tunheim granted the habeas petition and entered the following specific orders:
- N.A.M. is not subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2); his detention is governed by § 1226(a).
- Respondents must provide N.A.M. with a bond hearing within 7 days of the order (i.e., by January 5, 2026), at which both sides may present evidence and argument on danger to the community and flight risk.
- If no bond hearing is held within 7 days, N.A.M. must be immediately released from detention.
- Within 10 days, the parties must file a status update with the court on the results of the bond hearing (or on N.A.M.'s release if no hearing occurred), and advise whether further court proceedings are needed.
- Respondents are enjoined (legally prohibited) from removing, transferring, or facilitating the deportation of N.A.M. from the District of Minnesota before the bond hearing. Any emergency transfer request must be submitted to the court with an explanation and proposed destination, subject to the court's approval.
- N.A.M.'s motion to proceed under a pseudonym was granted, as his need for anonymity — based on his status as a victim and witness in a state criminal investigation and fear of retaliation — outweighs the public interest in full disclosure.
- The parties have 3 days to file any requests for redaction of the court record.
Note on What This Ruling Does and Does Not Decide This ruling does not determine whether N.A.M. will ultimately be released or deported. It only requires that an immigration judge hold a bond hearing. The outcome of that hearing — and any subsequent removal proceedings — remains to be determined.
Reviewer note from the AI+
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.