# Olsen

> District Court, N.D. Illinois · November 14, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11203940

## Case

- **Full name:** Joseph Alexander Dionisa Quinonez v. Sam Olson, Field Office Director of Enforcement and Removal Operations, Chicago, IL, Immigrations and Customs Enforcement, Todd M Lyons, Acting Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Kristi Noem, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, and Pamela Bondi, United States Attorney General
- **Court:** District Court, N.D. Illinois
- **Decided:** November 14, 2025
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11203940

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
Joseph Alexander Dionisa Quinonez, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
v. ) No. 25 CV 13524
)
SAM OLSON, Field Office Director of Judge John J. Tharp, Jr.
)
Enforcement and Removal Operations,
)
Chicago, IL, Immigrations and Customs
)
Enforcement, TODD M LYONS, Acting
)
Director of U.S. Immigration and
)
Customs Enforcement, KRISTI NOEM,
)
Secretary, U.S. Department of
)
Homeland Security, and PAMELA
)
BONDI, United States Attorney General
)

)
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
The petition for a writ of habeas corpus [1] is granted in part. Within five days of this order,
the petitioner must be provided with a bond hearing before an Immigration Judge (“IJ”). Absent a
timely bond hearing, the respondents are directed to release the petitioner under reasonable
conditions of supervision until such a bond hearing has been provided. This order is based on this
Court’s finding that 8 U.S.C. § 1225 (b)(2) does not apply to the petitioner, as explained below.
BACKGROUND
The petitioner, Joseph Alexander Dionisa Quinonez, is a citizen and national of Guatemala.
Pet. 11 ¶ 45, ECF No. 1. He arrived in the United States in May 2024. Resp. 1, ECF No. 9. When
he entered the country, immigration officials processed him and released him on his own
recognizance. Pet. Ex. A, at 4, ECF No. 1-1. He was also issued a Notice to Appear at that time.
Status Report 1 ¶ 2, ECF No. 8.
Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers arrested Quinonez on November 4,
2025, detaining him in Broadview, Illinois. Pet. 2 ¶¶ 1, 4. While in the Broadview Processing
Center, Quinonez filed a petition with this Court for a writ of habeas corpus. Resp’t’s Status Report
1 ¶ 1. The petitioner’s Notice to Appear scheduled him to appear before an immigration judge on
December 10, 2025. Resp. Ex. 1, at 1, ECF No. 9-1.

The plaintiff’s petition alleges violations of the Fifth Amendment right to due process, the
Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), stemming
from his detention without a bond hearing. Id. at 11–15. As in many similar cases litigated in this
district, the government argues that 8 U.S.C. § 1252 strips this Court of jurisdiction to hear this
case, and that the petitioner is not entitled to a bond hearing under the INA. Resp. 2, ECF No. 9.
The Court first considers, as it always must, whether it has jurisdiction to hear this case.
ANALYSIS
I. Jurisdiction
To start, this Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate the habeas petition presented in this case.

28 U.S.C. § 2241. The parties agree that at the time of filing this petition, the petitioner was
detained at ICE’s Broadview Processing Center in Illinois. Resp’t’s Status Report 1 ¶ 1. This Court
has jurisdiction over habeas petitions that were filed while the petitioner was present within its
geographical boundaries, despite the subsequent transfer of the petitioner to another district. See
In re Hall, 988 F.3d 376, 378 (7th Cir. 2021) (“[A] prisoner’s transfer from one federal facility to
another during the pendency of a habeas corpus proceeding does not affect the original district
court’s jurisdiction.”); Gamboa v. Daniels, 26 F.4th 410, 414 (7th Cir. 2022). Thus, even if the
petitioner has been transferred to Indiana or Wisconsin, Resp’t’s Status Report 2 ¶ 3, that would
have no effect on this Court’s jurisdiction.1
Respondents claim that this Court is statutorily barred from hearing this case because the
INA contains a variety of jurisdiction stripping provisions, codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1252.2
Respondents argue that three such provisions prevent this Court from hearing the petitioner’s

claim. None does.
A. Section 1252(g)
The respondents first point to § 1252(g), arguing that it strips this Court of jurisdiction to
review the decision to detain the petitioner. Ex. 2 Mem. 4–6, ECF No. 9-2. That provision states
that “no court shall have jurisdiction to hear any cause or claim by or on behalf of any alien arising
from the decision or action by the Attorney General to commence proceedings, adjudicate cases,
or execute removal orders against any alien under this chapter.” § 1252(g). Because ICE detained
the petitioner in connection with their intent to commence removal proceedings against him, see
Resp’t’s Status Report 1 ¶ 2, respondents contend their decision to detain him “arises from” their

decision to commence those proceedings. Ex. 2 Mem. 4.
The respondents’ analysis flies in the face of the Supreme Court’s decision in Reno v.
American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee. There, the Supreme Court held that § 1252(g) did
not apply to anything beyond those “three discrete actions that the Attorney General may take: her
‘decision or action’ to ‘commence proceedings, adjudicate cases, or execute removal orders.’” 525

1 The government’s status report advised the Court that such a transfer was expected, but
neither party has confirmed whether that has occurred.
2 In their response to the petition, respondents attach a memorandum written for another
case, explaining that it “presents the arguments that respondents wish to reiterate in this case.”
Resp. 2. As such, the Court assumes that where the facts of this case are substantially similar to
the facts discussed in the attached memorandum, the respondents intend to make the same
argument in this case.
U.S. 471, 482 (1999); see also Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281, 294 (2018) (“We did not
interpret [the language in § 1252(g)] to sweep in any claim that can technically be said to ‘arise
from’ the three listed actions of the Attorney General. Instead, we read the language to refer to just
those three specific actions themselves.”).
Contrary to the respondents’ argument, the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Sissoko v. Mukasey,

509 F.3d 947 (9th Cir. 2007) is inapposite. Ex. 2 Mem. 5. In Sissoko, unlike here, the petitioner
sought damages under Bivens. Id. at 948. Section 1252(g) applied in Sissoko because the petitioner
“directly challenge[ed] [the respondent’s] decision to commence expedited removal proceedings.”
Sissoko, 509 F.3d at 950. Moreover, the Ninth Circuit stressed the fact that there was an alternative
option available to the petitioner in that case: he could have sought habeas relief. Id. That is exactly
what the petitioner did here. Sissoko therefore does not support the respondents’ arguments.
The petitioner does not challenge a decision to commence removal proceedings, adjudicate
a case against him, or execute a removal order. Rather, he challenges the decision to detain him
without a bond hearing. Because that decision is not one of the three listed in § 1252(g), this

Court’s ability to review it is not precluded by that section.
B. Section 1252(b)(9)
The next INA provision respondents cite in support of their argument that this Court lacks
jurisdiction to hear this case is § 1252(b)(9), which provides:
Judicial review of all questions of law and fact, including interpretation and
application of constitutional and statutory provisions, arising from any action taken
or proceeding brought to remove an alien from the United States under this
subchapter shall be available only in judicial review of a final order under this
section. . . . [N]o court shall have jurisdiction . . . to review such an order or such
questions of law or fact.

Respondents contend this section means that petitioner’s detention, which arose out of
respondents’ attempt to remove him from the country, cannot be reviewed until a final removal
order is issued, and then only by a circuit court. Ex. 2 Mem. 7. That’s because § 1252(a)(5) says
that the only judicial review of a removal order is through a petition filed “with an appropriate
court of appeals.” Respondents thus read these two provisions as working together to divert all
claims relating to removal proceedings to a court of appeals post-removal order. Ex. 2 Mem. 7.
Again, the government construes the statutory text too broadly. A careful reader will notice

that the language in § 1252(b)(9) is similar to that in § 1252(g)—the words “arising from,” which
the Supreme Court in Reno interpreted narrowly, appear again. Indeed, the Court later held in
Jennings that § 1252(b)(9) did not bar it from hearing a petition alleging that the plaintiff’s
detention was overly prolonged in violation of due process. 583 U.S. at 291, 294–95. Just like the
petitioner in Jennings, the petitioner here is not “challenging the decision to detain [him] in the
first place or to seek removal; and [he is] not even challenging any part of the process by which
[his] removability will be determined.” Id. at 294. Rather, the petitioner is challenging his
detention under § 1225 and his entitlement to a bond hearing. Jennings holds that § 1252(b)(9)
does not bar this Court from hearing his claim.

It is no answer to say, as did the concurrence in Jennings, that detention is an action taken
to facilitate removal of an alien. Even assuming that fact, the Court observed, it does not answer
the relevant question: whether the legal questions presented by the petitioner’s claims—such as
whether “certain statutory provisions require detention without a bond hearing”—arise from the
actions taken to effect removal of an alien. Jennings, 583 U.S. at 292. “Those legal questions,” the
Court held, “are too remote from the actions taken to fall within the scope of § 1252(b)(9).” Id. at
295 n.3.
C. Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii)
The final portion of § 1252 that respondents argue strips this Court of jurisdiction is
§ 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii). That section provides that “no court shall have jurisdiction to review . . . any
other decision or action of the Attorney General or the Secretary of Homeland Security the
authority for which is specified under this subchapter to be in the discretion of the Attorney General

or the Secretary of Homeland Security.” The government’s brief points out that § 1226 confers
discretion upon the Attorney General in granting bail. Ex. 2 Mem. 9. It is true that the decision to
grant or deny bond is discretionary. 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), (e). But the petitioner is not challenging
that decision. How could he? Respondents claim he isn’t entitled to a bond hearing in the first
place, so no such decision has been rendered. Instead, the petitioner challenges the government’s
authority to detain him under § 1225 rather than § 1226, a question that is not committed to the
discretion of either the Attorney General or the Secretary of Homeland Security.
Because none of the provisions in § 1252 bar this Court from hearing the petitioner’s claim,
this Court continues to the merits of the petitioner’s INA and due process theories. Because the

Court finds that petitioner is entitled to a bond hearing on the basis of those theories, it does not
reach the APA theory of relief.
II. Exhaustion
Respondents argue that this Court should require the petitioner to exhaust his
administrative remedies (that is, to request a bond hearing by an IJ, pursuant to 8 C.F.R. §
1236.1(c)(8), (d)(1) (2025)), despite the lack of a statutory requirement to that effect. Ex. 2 Mem.
23. As respondents correctly point out, this Court may require exhaustion in its “sound judicial
discretion.” Gonzalez v. O’Connell, 355 U.S. 1010, 1016 (7th Cir. 2004) (quoting McCarthy v.
Madigan, 503 U.S. 140, 144 (1992)). The Seventh Circuit has said, however, that exhaustion
should be excused when it would be “futile because the agency is biased or has predetermined the
issue.” Id. at 1016. As discussed below, the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) has already
decided that aliens like the petitioner are not entitled to bond hearings, a decision that binds
immigration courts.3 Requiring exhaustion in this case would therefore be futile, and the Court
declines to impose such a requirement.

III. Proper Respondents
One preliminary matter that the Court must address before turning to the merits is the
question of the proper respondents. The Supreme Court has held that “core” habeas petitions—in
other words, petitions challenging the lawfulness of the petitioner’s present physical
confinement—must name the “person who has the immediate custody of the person detained, with
the power to produce the body of such party before the court or judge.” Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542
U.S. 426, 435 (2004). Thus, “the default rule is that the proper respondent is the warden of the
facility where the prisoner is being held, not the Attorney General or some other remote
supervisory official.” Id. at 435. The Seventh Circuit has held that this rule applies where a

noncitizen challenges the legality of their detention in the immigration context. Kholyavskiy v.
Achim, 443 F.3d 946, 952 (7th Cir. 2006). Accordingly, Sam Olson, Field Office Director of
Enforcement and Removal Operations for Chicago, is the proper respondent in this case. Other
officials named as respondents—Todd M. Lyons, Kristi Noem, and Pamela Bondi—are dismissed
from the case.

3 It bears noting that the government’s argument that the petitioner should be required to
request a bond hearing by an IJ appears to be inconsistent with its argument that the petitioner is
being detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) rather than 28 U.S.C. § 1226(a); only aliens detained
under § 1226(a) can request a bond hearing under 8 C.F.R. § 1236.1.
IV. Statutory Framework for Detention
The INA outlines procedures for the detention of aliens. Respondents claim they are
statutorily entitled to detain the petitioner under § 1225(b)(2), which applies to alien “applicants
for admission.” Petitioner, on the other hand, contends that § 1225 does not apply to him and that
his detention is governed by § 1226(a) instead. The key difference between the two statutory

provisions is that § 1226(a) provides the Secretary of Homeland Security discretion to release
aliens on bail, while § 1225(b)(2) mandates detention of aliens “seeking admission” until the
alien’s removal proceeding concludes, so long as the alien is not deemed “clearly and beyond a
doubt entitled to be admitted.” § 1225(b)(2)(A).
If one were to read only § 1225, or only § 1226, one would likely think that the section
they read applied to the petitioner in this case. After all, § 1225 purports to apply to all “applicants
for admission,” which the statute defines as “[a]n alien present in the United States who has not
been admitted.” § 1225(a)(1). The government argues that “applicant for admission” therefore
covers “all unadmitted foreign nationals in the United States . . . regardless of their proximity to

the border, the length of time they have been present here, or whether they ever had the subjective
intent to properly apply for admission.” Ex. 2 Mem. 14. There is no dispute that the petitioner is
an unadmitted foreign national present in the United States. Section 1225 generally requires the
government to detain those individuals if they are “seeking admission.” § 1225(b)(2)(A).
“Admission” is defined as “the lawful entry of the alien into the United States after inspection and
authorization by an immigration officer.” 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (a)(13)(A). The government argues that
the petitioner is “seeking admission” because he has never been lawfully admitted to the United
States. Ex. 2 Mem. 15. And because he hasn’t agreed to depart, they say, he must endeavor to
remain, meaning he seeks admission. Id. at 16.
The government’s understanding of § 1225’s scope is expansive, but plausible, when read
in isolation. But of course courts do not read statutory phrases, like “seeking admission,” in
isolation; “we read statutes as a whole.” Samantar v. Yousuf, 560 U.S. 305, 319 (2010) (quoting
United States v. Morton, 467 U.S. 822, 828 (1984)). And when § 1225 is read in context with
§ 1226, it is plain that the government’s reading of § 1225(b)(2)—that all deportable aliens are

“seeking admission” by remaining in the country and are therefore subject to mandatory
detention—is overly expansive. Section 1226(a) generally permits the Secretary either “to detain
the alien or to release him on bond or parole. If the alien is detained, he may seek review of his
detention by an officer at the Department of Homeland Security and then by an immigration
judge.” Nielsen v. Preap, 586 U.S. 392, 397 (2019) (citing 8 CFR §§ 236.1(c)(8), (d)(1), 1003.19,
1236.1(d)(1) (2018)). “[T]he alien may secure his release if he can convince the officer or
immigration judge that he poses no flight risk and no danger to the community.” Id. at 397–98
(citing 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.19(a), 1236.1(d); Matter of Guerra, 24 I. & N. Dec. 37 (BIA 2006)). If,
as the government maintains, § 1225 mandates detention of all unadmitted aliens in the United

States, then to whom does § 1226 apply?
Even if reasonable minds could disagree on the proper interpretation of § 1225 and § 1226,
this Court is bound to follow the Supreme Court’s decision in Jennings v. Rodriguez, which
answers this question. In Jennings, the Court explained that § 1225 applies to “certain aliens
seeking admission into the country,” while § 1226, in contrast, is a “default rule” that “applies to
aliens already present in the United States.” Jennings, 583 U.S. at 289, 303; see also Nielsen, 586
U.S. at 396–97 (holding that section 1226(a) applies to most deportable aliens “present in this
country”). Far from applying to all unadmitted aliens, Jennings explains that § 1225 applies to
aliens at the border—those who “arrive[] in the United States” and are “seeking admission into the
country.” 583 U.S. at 287, 289. Section 1226, on the other hand, applies to aliens present in the
country who were inadmissible at the time of entry. In short, § 1225 applies to those attempting to
enter the country, while § 1226 applies to those who are already here.
Jennings’s interpretation of § 1225 and § 1226 reconciles these two otherwise incongruous
provisions in a manner that comports with the surplusage canon, one of the standard tools of

statutory construction. The surplusage canon directs that courts should generally give meaning to
each part of a statute, especially when a whole portion would be rendered meaningless. Pulsifer v.
United States, 601 U.S. 124, 143 (2024) (“When a statutory construction thus ‘render[s] an entire
subparagraph meaningless,’ this Court has noted, the canon against surplusage applies with
special force.”). Earlier this year, Congress passed the Laken Riley Act, which excepts unadmitted
aliens who are charged or convicted of theft offenses from bond eligibility. § 1226(c)(1)(E); 8
U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A). If, as the respondents argue, all unadmitted aliens are already subject to
mandatory detention under § 1225, that would render the Laken Riley Act meaningless and violate
the surplusage canon.

The government relies on the BIA’s decision in Matter of Yajure Hurtado, 29 I. & N. Dec.
216 (BIA 2025), holding that immigration judges have no authority to issue bond to aliens “present
in the United States who [have] not been admitted after inspection.” Id. at 216, 229; see Ex. 2.
Mem. passim. But Hurtado does not address, or even acknowledge, the Supreme Court’s
reconciliation of §§ 1225 and 1226, which this court is bound to follow. The BIA, by contrast, has
no authority to bind this Court, which must undertake its own review of the statutory issues
presented here. See Loper Bright Enters. v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369, 412 (2024) (“Courts must
exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory
authority, as the APA requires.”). This Court may, however, look to longstanding agency practice
to inform its understanding of the relevant statutes. Id. at 386. The “longstanding agency practice
of providing § 1226(a) bond hearings to noncitizens like [the petitioner],” Ochoa Ochoa v. Noem,
25-cv-10865, 2025 WL 2938779, at *7 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 16, 2025), therefore supports this Court’s
conclusion that Yajure Hurtado is incorrect. The petitioner is not “seeking admission” under
§ 1225, but instead is already present in the country and so comes within the ambit of § 1226(a).

V. Due Process
The petitioner urges that his continued detention violates due process. Pet. 6. In response,
the government contends that because the petitioner never lawfully entered the country, he has
only those due process rights afforded to him by Congress. Ex. 2 Mem. 9–14. It is true that
Congress may prescribe the rights due to “an alien at the threshold of initial entry.” Dep’t of
Homeland Sec. v. Thuraissigiam, 591 U.S. 103, 107 (2020). But the Supreme Court has made
clear that “once an alien enters the country, the legal circumstance changes, for the Due Process
Clause applies to all ‘persons’ within the United States, including aliens, whether their presence
here is lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent.” Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 693 (2001);

see also Shaughnessy v. United States ex rel. Mezei, 345 U.S. 206, 212 (1953) (“[A]liens who have
once passed through our gates, even illegally, may be expelled only after proceedings conforming
to traditional standards of fairness encompassed in due process of law.”).
Unlike the petitioner in Thuraissigiam, who was detained within twenty-five yards of the
border, 591 U.S. at 114, the petitioner has been living in the United States for over a year. Because
the petitioner is within the United States, he is entitled to the full protections of the Due Process
Clause.
In determining what process is due, courts must consider “first, the private interest at stake;
second, the risk of erroneous deprivation and the value, if any, of additional procedural safeguards;
and third, the government’s countervailing interests.” Simpson v. Brown County, 860 F.3d 1001,
1006 (7th Cir. 2017) (citing Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335 (1976)). The petitioner’s
interest in his own liberty is great. See Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 690 (“Freedom from imprisonment—
from government custody, detention, or other forms of physical restraint—lies at the heart of the
liberty that Clause protects.”). The risk of erroneous deprivation is also great, because without a

bond hearing no judge can determine whether the petitioner should remain in custody. Miguel, No.
25-cv-11137, at *13 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 21, 2025). True, the government has an interest in ensuring the
petitioner does not abscond and in avoiding the costs of a bond hearing. But those interests are not
enough to outweigh the petitioner’s significant interest in his own liberty. The government already
determined when the petitioner entered the country that he could be released on his own
recognizance, Pet. Ex. A, at 4, and the cost of a bond hearing is minimal. The Mathews factors
indicate that due process compels a bond hearing.
The Supreme Court’s precedents support this conclusion. The Court has recognized that
where liberty is at stake in a civil proceeding, as here, the government’s interest must be especially

strong.
[T]his Court has said that government detention violates [the Due Process Clause]
unless the detention is ordered in a criminal proceeding with adequate procedural
protections, or, in certain special and “narrow” nonpunitive “circumstances,” where
a special justification, such as harm-threatening mental illness, outweighs the
“individual’s constitutionally protected interest in avoiding physical restraint.”

Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 690 (2001) (citation modified). Without a special justification,
the respondents cannot constitutionally deprive the petitioner of a bond hearing. A criminal record
that includes serious crimes provides such justification, per § 1226(c), but the bare fact of presence
in this country without admission provides no such justification.4
The Court also follows the lead of the “overwhelming consensus” of other courts granting
immigrant habeas petitions that have placed the burden on the government to show clear and
convincing evidence that the detainee poses a danger or flight risk at the bond hearing. See Ochoa

Ochoa, 2025 WL 2938779, at *8. Placing the burden on the government, rather than the petitioner,
“reflects the concern that a noncitizen ‘should not have to share the risk of error equally’ in the
context of a due process violation and [his] ‘loss of liberty.’” Id. (quoting German Santos v.
Warden Pike Cnty. Corr. Facility, 965 F.3d 203, 214 (3d Cir. 2020)).

4 The respondents point to Parra v. Perryman, 172 F.3d 954, 958 (7th Cir. 1999) for the
proposition that foreign nationals have no due process right to a bond hearing, but Parra involved
a petitioner who qualified as a “criminal alien” under § 1226(c) and its evaluation of the Mathews
factors appropriately took that status into account. The case does not hold that mandatory detention
of all unadmitted foreign nationals present in the United States, regardless of their criminal
histories or other circumstances, comports with due process.
x x x
No jurisdictional provision of the INA bars this Court from hearing the petitioner’s case,
nor is exhaustion required. The respondents may only detain petitioner under § 1226 of the INA,
which allows for bond hearings, not § 1225. Moreover, due process entitles the petitioner to a bond
hearing. Based on the foregoing, if a bond hearing before an IJ has not been conducted within five
days of the issuance of this Order, the respondents are directed to release the petitioner under
reasonable conditions of supervision until such a bond hearing has been provided. The parties are
directed to file a status report upon the occurrence of a bond hearing or the petitioner’s release.
The Clerk is directed to terminate Respondents Todd M. Lyons, Kristi Noem, and Pamela
Bondi, and alter the case caption accordingly.

Date: November 14, 2025 United Sint District Judge

14

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11203940. Public record. Not legal advice.