Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
CRISTOFER ALEXANDER TOCTE-
CHICAIZA,
Petitioner,
vs.
DAVID EASTERWOOD, Field Office
Director of Enforcement and Removal
Operations, St. Paul Field Office,
Immigration and Customs
Enforcement, et al.,
Respondents.
0:26-CV-669
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
GRANTING PETITION FOR WRIT
OF HABEAS CORPUS
The petitioner is a noncitizen currently detained by U.S. Immigration
and Customs Enforcement (ICE), seeking a writ of habeas corpus under 28
U.S.C. § 2241. He contends his detention is unlawful because he was denied a
bond hearing pursuant to 8 C.F.R. §§ 236.1(d)(1) and 1236.1(d)(1). See filing 1.
The government responds that detention is mandatory, not discretionary, and
the petitioner is not eligible to be released. See filing 7.
The briefing demonstrates that the petitioners' application for the writ
only presents issue of law—and the government concedes this point, see filing
7 at 14—so the Court declines to hold a hearing. See § 2243. The Court will
grant the petition for the reasons thoroughly articulated by this Court in
Velasco Hurtado v. Bondi, No. 0:26-CV-546, 2026 WL 184884 (D. Minn. Jan.
24, 2026). The government shall immediately—if necessary—return the
petitioner to the state of Minnesota1 and release him from custody.
1 The Court notes that, as of today, the petitioner doesn't seem to appear in the ICE Online
Detainee Locator System, https://locator.ice.gov/odls. It's not clear whether that might mean
CASE 0:26-cv-00669-JMG-DTS Doc. 8 Filed 01/29/26 Page 1 of 2

2
IT IS ORDERED:
1. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (filing 1) is granted.
2. The government shall, if necessary, immediately return the
petitioner to the District of Minnesota.
3. When the petitioner is in Minnesota, the government shall
immediately release him from custody.
4. No later than January 31, 2026, the government shall file
a status report certifying compliance with this Order.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated this 29th day of January, 2026.
BY THE COURT:
John M. Gerrard
Senior United States District Judge
that the petitioner is being, or has been, transported, or whether it's simply a record-keeping
problem. But the Court retains jurisdiction over a properly-filed habeas petition even if the
petitioner is later moved. Ex parte Endo, 323 U.S. 283, 307 (1944). From an excess of caution,
the Court will direct the government to return the petitioner to Minnesota, in the event that
he has been moved.
CASE 0:26-cv-00669-JMG-DTS Doc. 8 Filed 01/29/26 Page 2 of 2