Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Luis V.G.,
Petitioner,
v.
Pamela Bondi, Attorney General,
Kristi Noem, U.S. Department of
Homeland Security,
Todd M. Lyons, Acting Director of
Immigration and Customs Enforcement,
David Easterwood, Acting Director, St.
Paul Field Office Immigration and
Customs Enforcement,
Respondents.
Case No. 26-CV-0460-MJD-EMB
REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION
Before the Court is Petitioner Luis V.G.’s1 Petition for Writ Of Habeas
Corpus (Dkt. No. 1) under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Respondents filed a response
(Dkt. No. 5). Petitioner’s counsel informed the Court that no reply brief would
be filed.
The petition has been referred to me to issue a Report and
Recommendation. I recommend that the petition be GRANTED and that the
Court order Respondents to release Luis V.G. from custody immediately.
I. 	Background.
Petitioner Luis V.G. is a citizen of Ecuador. (Dkt. No. 1, ¶¶ 7, 12.) He
has lived in the United States for more than three years and resides in
1 This District uses the first name and last initials of nongovernmental
parties in immigration cases.
CASE 0:26-cv-00460-MJD-EMB Doc. 6 Filed 01/26/26 Page 1 of 6

2
Burnsville, Minnesota, with his seven-year-old daughter; his adult daughter
and infant grandchild live nearby. (Id., ¶¶ 12, 14.)
Luis V.G. has never received a final order of removal. (Dkt. No. 1, ¶ 13.)
On January 12, 2026, ICE agents arrested Luis V.G. (Dkt. No.1, ¶ 15.)
Respondents “did not have any warrant justifying Petitioner’s detention.”
(Id.) Luis V.G. remains detained at a location not identified on ICE’s online
detainee locator and not otherwise disclosed. (Id., ¶ 16.)
II. 	Discussion.
Luis V.G. claims that he is entitled to a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1226(a) and that Respondents are denying him such a hearing. (Dkt. No. 1,
¶¶ 31–32, 41–42.) Section 1226(a) is a discretionary administrative detention
provision that applies to noncitizens who reside in the United States. 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 claim that Luis V.G. is not entitled to a bond hearing
because his detention is “mandatory” under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). (Dkt. No. 5
at 1.) Unlike § 1226(a), § 1225(b)(2) applies to noncitizens who are seeking
admission to the United States, as opposed to already residing here. See
Beltran, 2025 WL 3719856, at *3.
CASE 0:26-cv-00460-MJD-EMB Doc. 6 Filed 01/26/26 Page 2 of 6

3
The Honorable Michael J. Davis ordered Respondents to show cause
why Luis V.G.’s writ should not be granted in this case. (Dkt. No. 3, ¶ 1.) In
other words, Respondents needed to explain why this case is different from
Judge Davis’s decisions in Beltran and Awaale.
Respondents have not done so. Indeed, Respondents concede that Luis
V.G.’s case is “not materially factually or legally distinguishable” from
Beltran and Awaale. (Dkt. No. 5 at 1 & id. n.1 (emphasis added).) In those
cases, Judge Davis concluded that the petitioners were not subject to
mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2). See Beltran, 2025 WL 3719856, at
*4; Awaale, 2025 WL 3754012, at *2. Respondents “admit[]” that the handful
of non-binding decisions concluding otherwise “reflect a minority position.”
(Dkt. No. 5 at 2.)
Given this Court’s prior rulings in materially factually and legally
indistinguishable cases, I recommend that the Court grant Luis V.G.’s
petition.
Further, 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
CASE 0:26-cv-00460-MJD-EMB Doc. 6 Filed 01/26/26 Page 3 of 6

4
Attorney General’ supporting Petitioner’s recent arrest, nor has the
government produced one to the Court”); Ahmed M. v. Bondi, No. 25-cv-4711-
ECT-SGE, 2026 WL 25627, at *3 (D. Minn. Jan. 5, 2026) (explaining that
issuance of a warrant is prerequisite to an alien’s arrest or detention,
including discretionary detention under § 1226(a)).
Here, Judge Davis specifically directed Respondents to answer the
question “whether the absence of a warrant preceding Petitioner’s arrest
necessitates Petitioner’s immediate release.” (Dkt. No. 3 ¶ 2(d).) Respondents
failed to address this question or point to a warrant supporting Luis V.G.’s
arrest and detention. Respondents abdicated their opportunity to argue
against immediate release. I agree with other decisions of this Court ordering
immediate release under these circumstances.
Respondents admit that they transferred Luis V.G. out of the District
of Minnesota to Texas and claim that “ICE is now working to transport
Petitioner back to Minnesota in compliance with the [Court’s] Order.” (Dkt.
No. 5 at 3.) (See also Dkt. No. 3 ¶¶ 5–6 (enjoining Respondents from removing
Luis V.G. from the District of Minnesota and ordering them to immediately
return him to Minnesota if he was removed already).) Respondents allege
that the transfer occurred before the Court issued January 20, 2026,
injunction; they do not allege the date on which Respondent was transferred.
CASE 0:26-cv-00460-MJD-EMB Doc. 6 Filed 01/26/26 Page 4 of 6

5
I recommend that Respondents release Luis V.G. immediately upon
returning him to the District of Minnesota.
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.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:
1. Petitioner Luis V.G.’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Dkt.
No. 1) be GRANTED.
2. Respondents be ORDERED to immediately return Luis V.G. to the
District of Minnesota if he has not yet been returned.
3. Respondents be ORDERED to immediately release Luis V.G. as soon
as Luis V.G. is in Minnesota.
4. Respondents be ORDERED to notify the Court and opposing counsel
within 24 hours of Petitioner’s release to confirm that the release
has occurred. If Luis V.G. has not been returned as previously
ordered, Respondents should immediately notify the Court of when
he will be returned and released.
Dated: January 26, 2026 	s/Elsa M. Bullard
Elsa M. Bullard
United States Magistrate Judge
CASE 0:26-cv-00460-MJD-EMB Doc. 6 Filed 01/26/26 Page 5 of 6

6
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 D. Minn. LR 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.”
(Emphasis added.) The Court modifies the deadline such that
objections are due on or before January 28, 2026. Responses to
objections are due on or before January 30, 2026. All objections and
responses must comply with the word or line limits set forth in Local Rule
72.2(c).
CASE 0:26-cv-00460-MJD-EMB Doc. 6 Filed 01/26/26 Page 6 of 6