C.A. v. Noem
Mahamed C.A. v. Kristi Noem, U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Department of Homeland Security, in her official capacity; Pamela Bondi, Attorney General of the United States, Department of Justice, in her official capacity; Todd M. Lyons, Acting Director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Immigration and Customs Enforcement, in his official capacity; Peter Berg, Field Office Director of Enforcement and Removal Operations, St. Paul Field Office, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, in his official capacity; and Joel L. Brott, Sheriff of Sherburne County, custodian of detainees of the Sherburne County Detention Center
- Michael Davis
- 0:25-cv-04551
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 7
In Mahamed C.A. v. Kristi Noem, Magistrate Judge John F. Docherty recommends that the court grant a Somali asylum-seeker's petition for release from immigration detention and order a bond hearing, finding that the government's new policy of treating long-present asylum applicants as subject to mandatory detention under a different section of immigration law is contrary to federal law and has been rejected by courts across the country.
Non-citizens who entered the United States without authorization, were encountered by immigration officials, released under discretionary detention rules, and then re-detained under the government's new policy of treating them as subject to mandatory detention. Specifically, asylum seekers who have been living in the United States for an extended period and were re-detained beginning in late 2025 under ICE's July 2025 policy change. Individuals currently detained under this new interpretation in the District of Minnesota may be most directly affected.
What happened
In Mahamed C.A. v. Kristi Noem, Petitioner Mahamed C.A., a Somali man who entered the United States in November 2022, was released on bond by immigration officials and allowed to pursue an asylum application. In December 2025, the government abruptly re-detained him, claiming for the first time that he was subject to mandatory detention under a different provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act — the federal law governing immigration — than the one that had applied to him for the prior three years. He filed a petition asking a federal court to order his release or, at minimum, a hearing to determine whether he should be held or freed on bond.
The legal dispute centers on two sections of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Section 1225 requires mandatory detention (no hearing, no bond) for people the government considers to be seeking admission to the United States. Section 1226 allows detention only after a hearing and applies to people already unlawfully present in the United States. Until a July 2025 policy change by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the government had long treated people in Mahamed C.A.'s situation — who entered the country, were encountered by officials, and were released to pursue immigration proceedings — as falling under Section 1226. The government now argues all asylum applicants fall under Section 1225 regardless of how long they have been in the country. Magistrate Judge Docherty found this new interpretation unpersuasive, noting it is as illogical as treating someone who already entered a movie theater without a ticket and watched the film as still 'seeking admission' to the theater.
Magistrate Judge Docherty recommends that the petition be granted and that Mahamed C.A. be given a bond hearing in the District of Minnesota, where he has been living. The recommendation notes that every other judge in the District of Minnesota who has addressed this legal question has ruled against the government's new interpretation, and that more than 300 courts nationwide have done the same. The government cited one district court decision, Chen v. Almodovar, that supported its position, but Magistrate Judge Docherty declined to follow it, noting it is an outlier that has since been rejected by every court to consider it. Because this is a magistrate judge's recommendation rather than a final order, either party may file written objections within 14 days, and the assigned district court judge will have the final say.
The detailed version
This matter involves a Petition for a writ of habeas corpus — a legal request asking a court to order that a detained person be released or given a hearing — filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 by Petitioner Mahamed C.A., a Somali national, against Respondents including the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Attorney General, the Acting Director of ICE, a regional ICE Field Office Director, and the Sherburne County Sheriff.
Background Facts Mahamed C.A. entered the United States illegally in November 2022, crossing from Mexico. He was immediately encountered by U.S. immigration officials, who issued him a Notice to Appear for removal proceedings and released him under the discretionary detention provision of 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). He applied for asylum on March 20, 2023, citing danger in Somalia stemming from his marriage to a woman from a different clan. He was re-detained by ICE in December 2025 and initially held at the Sherburne County Jail. Shortly after he filed this habeas petition, ICE transferred him from Minnesota to Texas, citing the need for 'bed space decompression' — meaning Minnesota detention facilities were overcrowded with recently arrested individuals. Magistrate Judge Docherty noted this transfer and recommended that any bond hearing be held in Minnesota, where witnesses and evidence are located.
Legal Framework Two provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) are at the center of this dispute: - 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2): Applies to 'an alien seeking admission' to the United States. Detention under this section is mandatory — no hearing, no bond opportunity. - 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a): Applies to aliens unlawfully present in the United States. Detention is discretionary and may only be imposed after a hearing at which the government must justify continued detention.
For decades, including during Mahamed C.A.'s own case from 2022 onward, the government treated individuals who had crossed the border, been encountered by officials, and released into the interior of the United States as subject to Section 1226. In July 2025, ICE announced a policy shift, declaring that all applicants for admission — not just those physically arriving at a port of entry — should be treated as subject to mandatory detention under Section 1225. In December 2025, ICE applied this new interpretation to Mahamed C.A. and re-detained him.
Analysis Magistrate Judge Docherty found no reason to depart from the near-universal judicial consensus rejecting the government's new interpretation. Key points in his analysis:
1. Historical Practice: For decades, the government itself treated persons in Mahamed C.A.'s situation as subject to Section 1226, not Section 1225. The shift in December 2025 was an about-face with no apparent statutory basis.
2. Plain Meaning and Logic: Section 1225 applies to 'applicants for admission.' Courts, including this recommendation, have found it illogical to treat a person who has been living inside the United States for years as still 'seeking admission.' The opinion quotes a movie theater analogy from Lopez Benitez v. Francis (S.D.N.Y. 2025): treating such a person as 'seeking admission' is like treating someone who walked into a movie theater without a ticket and has been watching the film as still 'seeking admission' to the theater.
3. Term of Art: The opinion approvingly cites Goorakani v. Lyons (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 15, 2025), which explained that 'applicant for admission' is a legal term of art covering two categories — those already present but not yet admitted, and those arriving at the border — but that Section 1225's mandatory detention provision applies only to arriving aliens, not to those already present in the interior.
4. Rejection of Government's Outlier Authority: The government cited Chen v. Almodovar (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 4, 2025) as supporting mandatory detention for all asylum applicants regardless of their location. Magistrate Judge Docherty declined to follow Chen, noting it is an outlier even within its own district, contradicts prior Southern District of New York decisions, and has since been rejected by every court to address it, including courts in the Southern District of New York, Eastern District of New York, and the District of Vermont.
5. Breadth of Judicial Rejection: The opinion notes that every district court judge in the District of Minnesota who has addressed the Section 1225 vs. Section 1226 issue has ruled against the government, and that over 300 courts nationwide have done so as well. The government has continued to re-litigate the issue despite consistent losses.
Jurisdiction Note In one prior case in this district, a judge found the court lacked jurisdiction to address the Section 1225 vs. Section 1226 question. Acxel S.Q.D.C. v. Bondi, No. 25-CV-3348. However, the government did not challenge jurisdiction here. Magistrate Judge Docherty noted that had it done so, he would have followed the jurisdictional analysis from Fuentes v. Olson (D. Minn. Dec. 9, 2025) and found jurisdiction.
Standard of Proof The Petitioner bears the burden of proving entitlement to habeas relief by a preponderance of the evidence (more likely than not), citing Aditya W.H. v. Trump, 782 F. Supp. 3d 691, 703 (D. Minn. 2025).
Recommendation Magistrate Judge John F. Docherty recommends that the Petition for a writ of habeas corpus be GRANTED and that Mahamed C.A. be afforded a bond hearing in the District of Minnesota.
Procedural Posture This is a Report and Recommendation from a United States Magistrate Judge, not a final order. It is not directly appealable to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. Either party may file written objections within 14 days of service of the recommendation. The opposing party then has 14 days to respond. The assigned district court judge (Judge Michael J. Davis, based on the case number designation MJD) will review any objections and issue the final ruling.
Reviewer note from the AI+
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.