Guillermo Antonio Guadarrama de Andrade v. Noem
Guillermo Antonio Guadarrama de Andrade v. Kristi Noem, Secretary, Department of Homeland Security, et al.
- Traynor
- 0:26-cv-01187
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
In Guadarrama de Andrade v. Noem, Judge Traynor denied the petitioner's motion asking the court to reconsider its earlier refusal to order his release from immigration detention, concluding that despite a factual error in the original ruling, the legal outcome was unchanged because a pending asylum application places someone in the category of people 'seeking admission' under federal immigration law, not the category that allows release under bond.
Individuals held in immigration detention who entered the United States on a visa waiver program and have a pending asylum application, and who are arguing they are entitled to a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226 rather than being subject to mandatory detention under § 1225.
What happened
In Guadarrama de Andrade v. Noem, Guillermo Antonio Guadarrama de Andrade, who is detained by immigration authorities, had previously asked a federal court to order his release by filing a petition — a formal request asking a court to review whether the government is lawfully holding someone. The court denied that petition without prejudice (meaning he could refile) on February 19, 2026, the same day he filed this motion asking the court to reconsider. He argued that because he originally entered the United States lawfully on a visa waiver program and has a pending asylum application, he should be classified under a different section of immigration law — one that gives detained people the right to a bond hearing — rather than the harsher section that applies to people seeking admission.
The court acknowledged that it made a factual error in the earlier ruling by incorrectly stating that Guadarrama de Andrade had not lawfully entered the country. However, the court said this mistake did not change the legal conclusion. Under federal immigration law, a person who is physically present in the United States but has not been formally admitted — including someone with only a pending asylum application — is still treated as someone 'seeking admission.' The asylum application receipt notice in the court record explicitly stated in bold letters that it 'does not grant any immigration status or benefit.' The court also distinguished this case from another recent case involving a person with DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) status, which carries a specific legal designation of lawful presence that a pending asylum application does not.
Judge Traynor denied the motion for reconsideration, leaving the earlier ruling in place. The court emphasized that it is not the role of the courts to set immigration policy or enforcement priorities, quoting a recent statement from the U.S. Supreme Court.
The detailed version
This order addresses a motion for reconsideration filed by Petitioner Guillermo Antonio Guadarrama de Andrade on February 19, 2026, one day after Judge Daniel M. Traynor denied without prejudice his petition for a writ of habeas corpus — a court order requiring the government to justify the lawfulness of a person's detention. The underlying detention is by immigration authorities under the Department of Homeland Security.
The petitioner's core argument was that he should be detained (if at all) under 8 U.S.C. § 1226, which applies to aliens who were previously admitted and are now removable and who have the right to a bond hearing, rather than under 8 U.S.C. § 1225, which covers 'applicants for admission' and permits mandatory detention without bond. He contended that because he entered on a valid visa waiver program and has a pending asylum application, his lawful status is effectively frozen while that application is pending.
Judge Traynor acknowledged that paragraph 12 of the earlier order contained an error: the court had incorrectly stated the petitioner did not lawfully enter after inspection. Despite this concession, the court held that this error was immaterial to the outcome. The controlling legal question — which statutory detention regime applies — turned not on how the petitioner entered but on whether he has since been 'admitted' within the meaning of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Citing Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281, 287 (2018), the court reiterated that a person who is present in the United States but 'has not been admitted' is treated as an applicant for admission subject to § 1225, not § 1226.
The court further held that filing an asylum application places the petitioner in the category of those 'seeking admission' under § 1225, relying on Chen v. Almodovar, 2025 WL 3484855 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 4, 2025), which reasoned that 'admission' is defined in terms of lawful status rather than physical presence. The petitioner's asylum receipt notice — part of the record — explicitly stated in large bold letters: 'THIS NOTICE DOES NOT GRANT ANY IMMIGRATION STATUS OR BENEFIT.'
The court distinguished this case from Cordoba-Hernandez v. Noem, No. 26-cv-800 (D. Minn. Feb. 5, 2026), also decided by Judge Traynor, where a petitioner with DACA status had been found to be 'treated as lawfully present' and was not removable. No equivalent protective designation exists for a pending asylum applicant.
Finally, the court quoted Justice Kavanaugh's concurrence in Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo, 146 S. Ct. 1, 5 (2025), for the proposition that courts do not set immigration policy or enforcement priorities, and denied the motion for reconsideration.
Reviewer note from the AI+
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.