Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Claudio E.A.S.,
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; and David
Easterwood, Acting Director, St. Paul
Field Office Immigration and Customs
Enforcement,
Respondents.
Civil No. 26-583 (DWF/DLM)
MEMORANDUM
OPINION AND ORDER
INTRODUCTION
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Claudio E.A.S.’s petition for a writ of
habeas corpus (the “Petition”). (Doc. No. 1.) Respondents filed a response asserting
authority to detain Petitioner under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). (Doc. No. 4.) For the reasons
set forth below, the Court grants the Petition and orders Respondents to release Petitioner
immediately.
BACKGROUND
Petitioner is a citizen of Ecuador and a resident of Brooklyn Park, Minnesota.
(Doc. No. 1 ¶¶ 7, 17.) He has lived in the United States since approximately 2001. (Id.
¶ 17.) He has a nine-month-old child who is a United States citizen. (Id. ¶ 19.)
CASE 0:26-cv-00583-DWF-DLM Doc. 5 Filed 01/28/26 Page 1 of 5

2
On January 22, 2026, as Petitioner was leaving a laundromat, he was arrested by
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents. (Id. ¶ 20.) No warrant was issued
for his arrest. (See id.) Petitioner is not subject to an order of removal. (Id. ¶ 18.)
The current location of Petitioner is not known to the Court. He was first brought
to the Whipple Federal Building in Minnesota. (Id. ¶¶ 7, 24.) He was then transferred to
a facility in El Paso, Texas. (Doc. No. 4 at 2.) Respondents are now working with the
Department of Homeland Security to return Petitioner to Minnesota. (See id. at 1-2.)
Respondents requested 48 hours to update the Court on Petitioner’s current location. (Id.
at 2.)
The Petition was filed on January 23, 2026. (Doc. No. 1 at 15.) Petitioner asserts
that his detention violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, the
Immigration and Nationality Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act. (Id. ¶¶ 34-49.)
He asks the Court to order his release, or alternatively, order the immigration court to
hold a bond hearing. (Id. at 15.) On January 23, 2026, the Court ordered Respondents to
answer the Petition by January 26, 2026, at 12:00 p.m. CT, and enjoined Respondents
from moving Petitioner from this District pending further order. (Doc. No. 2.)
Respondents timely filed a response. (Doc. No. 4.)
DISCUSSION
A district court may provide habeas relief to a person who is being detained in
violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). That
authority includes jurisdiction to hear habeas challenges to immigration-related detention.
Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 687 (2001); Deng Chol A. v. Barr, 455 F. Supp. 3d 896,
CASE 0:26-cv-00583-DWF-DLM Doc. 5 Filed 01/28/26 Page 2 of 5

3
900-01 (D. Minn. 2020). The burden is on the petitioner to prove illegal detention by a
preponderance of the evidence. See Mohammed H. v. Trump, 786 F. Supp. 3d 1149,
1154 (D. Minn. 2025).
Respondents submitted a response, arguing that Petitioner is subject to mandatory
detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A), and reiterating arguments the Court has
already considered and rejected. (See Doc. No. 4.) As this Court has explained on
multiple occasions, Respondents’ interpretation of § 1225 contradicts the plain language
of the statute. See Jose L.M.S. v. Bondi, No. 26-cv-474, 2026 WL 185066, at *2
(D. Minn. Jan. 25, 2026); Omar E.F.G. v. Bondi, No. 26-cv-451, 2026 WL 184571, at *2
(D. Minn. Jan. 23, 2026); Victor S.M. v. Noem, No. 26-cv-400, 2026 WL 161445, at *2
(D. Minn. Jan. 21, 2026). Section 1225 applies to “applicants for admission”—
noncitizens who are either “present in the United States who ha[ve] not been admitted or
who arrive[] in the United States.” 8 U.S.C. § 1225(a)(1). Section 1226 applies where
§ 1225 is inapplicable and provides immigration judges with the discretion to grant
release on bond to noncitizens subject to removal proceedings. See id. § 1226(a).
Here, Petitioner is not “arriving.” He has been in the United States for twenty-five
years. See Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281, 289 (2018) (noting that § 1226(a)
applies to “certain aliens already in the country”). Petitioner is therefore subject to the
discretionary bond provisions of § 1226(a), not the mandatory bond provisions of
§ 1225(b)(2).
Having found that Petitioner is being detained unlawfully, the question becomes
the correct remedy. A detainee being held pursuant to § 1226(a), as Petitioner is here,
CASE 0:26-cv-00583-DWF-DLM Doc. 5 Filed 01/28/26 Page 3 of 5

4
must have been served an arrest warrant prior to detainment. 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a); see also
Ahmed M. v. Bondi, No. 25-cv-4711, 2026 WL 25627, at *3 (D. Minn. Jan. 5, 2026)
(collecting cases). There is no evidence that Respondents had a warrant to arrest
Petitioner. And after being given the opportunity to explain the true cause of Petitioner’s
detainment and provide documents of such (see Doc. No. 2), Respondents did not do so,
(see Doc. No. 4). The Court therefore concludes that Petitioner was arrested without a
warrant. The remedy for a warrantless arrest is immediate release. Munaf v. Geren,
553 U.S. 674, 693 (2008) (“Habeas is at its core a remedy for unlawful executive
detention. The typical remedy for such detention is, of course, release.” (citation
omitted)).
ORDER
Based on the foregoing and the record in this case, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED
that:
1. 	Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. [1]) is
GRANTED.
2. 	The Court DECLARES that Petitioner’s current detention is unlawful
under the Constitution and laws of the United States.
3. 	Respondents are ORDERED to release Petitioner from custody
immediately. If Petitioner is not currently detained in Minnesota, Respondents are
ORDERED to immediately return Petition to Minnesota and then immediately release
Petitioner from custody.
CASE 0:26-cv-00583-DWF-DLM Doc. 5 Filed 01/28/26 Page 4 of 5

5
4. 	Within three (3) days of the date of this Order, the Government shall
provide the Court with a status update confirming Petitioner’s release and the location
where he was released.
5. 	Respondents are directed to release Petitioner with all personal documents
and belongings, such as his driver’s license, passport, other immigration documents, and
cell phone, and without conditions such as ankle monitors or tracking devices.
6. 	Respondents are ENJOINED from re-detaining Petitioner under this same
statutory theory, absent materially changed circumstances.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: January 28, 2026 	s/Donovan W. Frank
DONOVAN W. FRANK
United States District Judge
CASE 0:26-cv-00583-DWF-DLM Doc. 5 Filed 01/28/26 Page 5 of 5