Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Walter Z.,
Petitioner,
v.
Pamela Bondi, Attorney General;
Kristi Noem, Secretary, U.S.
Department of Homeland Security;
Todd M. Lyons, Acting Director of
Immigration and Customs
Enforcement, Immigration and
Customs Enforcement; and David
Easterwood, Acting Director, St.
Paul Field Office, U.S. Immigration
and Customs Enforcement,
Respondents.
Case No. 26-CV-373 (MJD/EMB)
REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION
Before the Court is the Petitioner Walter Z.’s1 Verified Petition for Writ
of Habeas Corpus (Dkt. No. 1). Respondents filed a response (Dkt. No. 5),
and Walter Z. did not reply.
This case has been referred to the undersigned for a report and
recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Local Rule 72.1. For the
1 This District has adopted a policy of using only the first name and last
initial of any nongovernmental parties in immigration cases.
CASE 0:26-cv-00373-MJD-EMB Doc. 6 Filed 01/27/26 Page 1 of 6

2
following reasons, I recommend the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Dkt.
1) be granted, and Respondents be ordered to immediately release Walter Z.
I. Background
Petitioner Walter Z. is a citizen of Ecuador who lives in Minneapolis.
(Dkt. No. 1 ¶¶ 7, 12.) Walter Z. entered the United States without inspection
in 2010, and he is not subject to a final order of removal. (Id. ¶¶ 12–13.)
Walter Z. has family and community ties in Minneapolis. (Id. ¶ 14.)
Nevertheless, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”)
arrested him on January 15, 2026. (Id. ¶ 15.) ICE arrested him “without a
warrant” and “with no notice or opportunity to be heard and no identifiable
lawful reason.” (Dkt. No. 2 at 1.)
Walter Z.’s counsel believes he is currently being held at the Whipple
Federal Building in St. Paul, although counsel has unsuccessfully “searched
for [Walter Z.’s] location multiple times on the online ICE Locator on January
16, 2026.” (Dkt. No. 1 ¶¶ 7, 19.)
II. Legal Standard
Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, the Court may grant a writ of habeas corpus to
any petitioner who demonstrates he is “in custody in violation of the
Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3);
see also Rasul v. Bush, 542 U.S. 466, 473 (2004)). The right to challenge
unlawful detention under § 2241 “extends to those persons challenging the
CASE 0:26-cv-00373-MJD-EMB Doc. 6 Filed 01/27/26 Page 2 of 6

3
lawfulness of immigration-related detention.” Deng Chol A. v. Barr, 455 F.
Supp. 3d 896, 900–01 (D. Minn. 2020) (citing Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S.
678, 687 (2001)). “The habeas petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating
by a preponderance of the evidence that their detention is unlawful.”
Maldonado v. Olson, 795 F. Supp. 3d 1134, 1143 (D. Minn. 2025).
III. Analysis
Walter Z. claims he is being unlawfully detained and seeks immediate
release. (Id. ¶¶ 46–51.) The Honorable Michael J. Davis ordered
Respondents to show cause why Walter Z.’s writ should not be granted in this
case. (Dkt. No. 4 ¶ 1.) He also ordered them to provide affidavits or exhibits
“to establish the lawfulness and correct duration of [Walter Z.’]s detention,”
and to explain “[w]hether the absence of a warrant preceding [Walter Z.]’s
arrest necessitates [his] immediate release.” (Id. ¶ 2(a), (d).)
In their one-page response, Respondents argue Walter Z.’s “petition
raises legal and factual issues similar to those in prior habeas petitions this
Court has decided,” and which are currently on appeal in Avila v. Bondi, No.
25-3248 (8th Cir. Docketed Nov. 10, 2025). (Dkt. No. 5 at 1.) In that case,
and many others in this district, the Court has decided that a noncitizen
“who has lived in the United States for years but was never lawfully admitted
to the country” is not an “an alien seeking admission” and is therefore not
subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). Avila v. Bondi,
CASE 0:26-cv-00373-MJD-EMB Doc. 6 Filed 01/27/26 Page 3 of 6

4
CV 25-3741 (JRT/SGE), 2025 WL 2976539, at *5 (D. Minn. Oct. 21, 2025).
Rather, 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) governs in such situations, and it requires
Respondents to provide a bond hearing prior to detaining a noncitizen. See
id. at *7.
The undersigned need not provide a detailed analysis of the interplay
between § 1225(b)(2) and § 1226(a) because Judge Davis has already ruled
consistently with Avila in similar cases. See Beltran v. Bondi, No. 25-cv-
4604-MJD-DTS, 2025 WL 3719856, at *3 (D. Minn. Dec. 23, 2025); Awaale v.
Noem, No. 25-cv-4551-MJD-JFD, 2025 WL 3754012 (D. Minn. Dec. 29, 2025).
Respondents offer no justification to stray from that result here. Indeed, they
concede this action “raises legal and factual issues similar” to the one raised
in Avila. (Dkt. No. 5 at 1.) Given this Court’s prior rulings in materially
factually and legally indistinguishable cases, I recommend that the Court
grant Walter Z.’s petition.
Further, I would recommend Respondents be ordered to immediately
release Walter Z. An arrest warrant is a prerequisite to detention under
§ 1226(a). Ahmed M. v. Bondi, 25-CV-4711 (ECT/SGE), 2026 WL 25627, at
*3 (D. Minn. Jan. 5, 2026). Walter Z. alleges his arrest was warrantless and
—despite Judge Davis’s directive—Respondents did not provide an arrest
warrant or address “whether the absence of a warrant preceding Petitioner’s
arrest necessitates Petitioner’s immediate release.” (Dkt. No. 4 ¶ 2(d).)
CASE 0:26-cv-00373-MJD-EMB Doc. 6 Filed 01/27/26 Page 4 of 6

5
Respondents have therefore abdicated their opportunity to argue
against immediate release. Given Respondents’ concessions in this case, I
recommend that Petitioner be immediately released. See Munaf v. Geren, 553
U.S. 674, 693 (2008) (noting that the “typical remedy [for unlawful executive
detention] is, of course, release”); see also Roseline K. N. v. Bondi, No. 26-cv-
540-KMM-SGE, 2026 WL 185069, at *2 (D. Minn. Jan. 25, 2026) (ordering
immediate release when government “has not claimed to have a ‘warrant
issued by the Attorney General’ supporting Petitioner’s recent arrest, nor has
the government produced one to the Court”).
Finally, I draw the parties’ attention to the atypically short deadlines
for filing objections to this Report and Recommendation and responses to
those objections, set forth in the “Notice” below.
RECOMMENDATION
Based upon the foregoing, and on all of the files, records, and
proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED THAT:
1. Walter Z.’s Verified Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Dkt. No. 1) be
GRANTED;
2. Respondents be ORDERED to immediately release Walter Z.; and
3. Respondents be ORDERED to file a notice confirming such release
within 24 hours of the entry of an order granting such relief.
CASE 0:26-cv-00373-MJD-EMB Doc. 6 Filed 01/27/26 Page 5 of 6

6
Dated: January 27, 2026 s/Elsa M. Bullard
Elsa M. Bullard
United States Magistrate Judge
NOTICE
Filing Objections: This Report and Recommendation is not an order or
judgment of the District Court and is therefore not appealable directly to the
Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Under Local Rule 72.2(b)(1): “A party may file and serve specific written
objections to a magistrate judge’s proposed findings and recommendations
within 14 days after being served with a copy of the recommended
disposition, unless the court sets a different deadline.” Here, the Court
provides a 3-day deadline for objections, and a 2-day deadline for
responses to objections. All objections and responses must comply with the
word or line limits set forth in Local Rule 72.2(c).
CASE 0:26-cv-00373-MJD-EMB Doc. 6 Filed 01/27/26 Page 6 of 6