Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Milton A.C.Q.,
Petitioner,
v.
Pamela Bondi, Attorney General; Kristi
Noem, Secretary, U.S. Department of
Homeland Security; Todd M. Lyons,
Acting Director of U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement; and David
Easterwood, Acting Director, St. Paul
Field Office, U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement,
Respondents.
Civil No. 26-684 (DWF/DTS)
MEMORANDUM
OPINION AND ORDER
INTRODUCTION
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Milton A.C.Q.’s petition for a writ of
habeas corpus (“the Petition”). (Doc. No. 1.) Respondents filed a form response
asserting authority to detain Petitioner under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A). (See 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 El Salvador and a resident of St. Paul, Minnesota. (Doc.
No. 1 ¶¶ 13, 21.) He has lived in the United States since 2000. (Id. ¶ 21.) He has two
children who are United States citizens. (Id. ¶ 22.)
CASE 0:26-cv-00684-DWF-DTS Doc. 6 Filed 02/01/26 Page 1 of 5

2
On January 23, 2026, Petitioner was approached on the street by U.S. Immigration
and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) agents who demanded to see his documents. (Id.
¶ 23.) The ICE agents then arrested Petitioner. (Id. ¶¶ 2, 23.) No warrant was issued for
this arrest. (See id.) He is currently being held by ICE in Minnesota without a scheduled
release date. (Id. ¶¶ 11, 13.)
The Petition was filed on January 26, 2026. (Id. at 21.) 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. ¶¶ 48-66.) He asks the Court
to order his release, or alternatively, order the immigration court to hold a bond hearing.
(Id. at 20-21.) On January 27, 2026, the Court ordered Respondents to answer the
Petition by January 30, 2026, at 12:00 p.m. CT, and enjoined Respondents from moving
Petitioner from this District pending further order. (Doc. No. 3.) Respondents timely
filed a form 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,
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).
CASE 0:26-cv-00684-DWF-DTS Doc. 6 Filed 02/01/26 Page 2 of 5

3
Respondents submitted a form response, arguing that Petitioner is subject to
mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A), and pointing the Court to their
arguments in a pending Eighth Circuit case: Avila v. Bondi, No. 25-3248. (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 an arriving noncitizen because he has been in the United
States for nearly three decades. 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,
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)
CASE 0:26-cv-00684-DWF-DTS Doc. 6 Filed 02/01/26 Page 3 of 5

4
(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. 3), 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.
4. 	Within three (3) days of the date of this Order, Respondents shall provide
the Court with a status update confirming Petitioner’s release.
5. 	Respondents are directed to release Petitioner: (1) in Minnesota; (2) with
all personal documents and belongings, such as his driver’s license, passport, other
immigration documents, and cell phone; (3) without conditions such as ankle monitors or
CASE 0:26-cv-00684-DWF-DTS Doc. 6 Filed 02/01/26 Page 4 of 5

5
tracking devices; and (4) with all clothing and outerwear he was wearing at the time of
detention, or other proper winter attire. In addition, Respondents shall provide
reasonable advance notice to counsel to arrange for a safe release of Petitioner or
otherwise provide notice immediately after release.
6. 	Respondents are ENJOINED from re-detaining Petitioner under this same
statutory theory, absent materially changed circumstances.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: February 1, 2026 	s/Donovan W. Frank
DONOVAN W. FRANK
United States District Judge
CASE 0:26-cv-00684-DWF-DTS Doc. 6 Filed 02/01/26 Page 5 of 5