Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Rahmo A.A.,
Petitioner,
v.
David Easterwood, Director of St. Paul
Field Office, U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement, in their official
capacities; Kristi Noem, Secretary of the
U.S. Department of Homeland Security, in
their official capacities; Pamela Bondi,
Attorney General of the United States, in
their official capacities; and Daren
Margolin, Acting Deputy Director,
Executive Office for Immigration Review,
in their official capacities,
Respondents.
Civil No. 26-829 (DWF/DJF)
MEMORANDUM
OPINION AND ORDER
INTRODUCTION
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Rahmo A.A.’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. 5.)
For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants the Petition and orders Respondents to
release Petitioner immediately.
BACKGROUND
Petitioner is a citizen of Ethiopia and a resident of Minneapolis, Minnesota. (Doc.
No. 1 ¶¶ 20, 26.) Petitioner has resided in the United States continuously since February
CASE 0:26-cv-00829-DWF-DJF Doc. 7 Filed 02/02/26 Page 1 of 5

2
2023, when she initially entered the United States without inspection. (Id. ¶ 26.) At the
time of entry, Petitioner was initially detained but released into the United States on her
own recognizance pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226 and was issued an I-220A. (Id. ¶ 27.)
Petitioner has no criminal record. (Id. ¶ 26.) Petitioner filed an initial asylum application
on October 30, 2023. (Id. ¶ 28.) Petitioner was placed in removal proceedings through a
Notice of Appearance dated February 24, 2023. (Id. ¶ 27.)
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) agents, or other federal
agents acting on ICE’s behalf, arrested Petitioner on January 29, 2026, at her regularly
scheduled check-in. (Id. ¶ 29.) Petitioner was detained at the Whipple Federal Building
at Fort Snelling in Minnesota and, to the knowledge of Petitioner’s counsel, she has not
been moved. (Id. ¶¶ 1, 16.)
Petitioner filed the Petition on January 29, 2026. (Id. at 17.) Petitioner asserts that
her detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) is unlawful because it violates the Due Process
Clause of the Fifth Amendment, the Immigration and Nationality Act, and the
Administrative Procedure Act, and because she is a member of the Bond Eligible Class
certified in Maldonado Bautista v. Santacruz, No. 25-cv-1873, 2025 WL 3713987 (C.D.
Cal. Dec. 18, 2025). (Id. ¶¶ 43-55.) 1 Petitioner requests, among other things, release
from detention or an order requiring Respondents to provide her with a bond hearing
under 8 U.S.C. § 1226 within seven days. (Id. at 16-17.) On January 29, 2026, the Court
1 	Because the Court concludes that § 1225(b) does not apply to Petitioner, and
therefore Petitioner is entitled to relief regardless of whether she is a member of the class,
the Court need not address the effect of Maldonado Bautista.
CASE 0:26-cv-00829-DWF-DJF Doc. 7 Filed 02/02/26 Page 2 of 5

3
ordered Respondents to answer the Petition on or before February 1, 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. 5.)
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).
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. 5.) 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
CASE 0:26-cv-00829-DWF-DJF Doc. 7 Filed 02/02/26 Page 3 of 5

4
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 she has been in the United
States for three years and has a pending application for asylum. 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)
(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. 5). 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:
CASE 0:26-cv-00829-DWF-DJF Doc. 7 Filed 02/02/26 Page 4 of 5

5
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, the Government 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 her driver’s license, passport, other
immigration documents, and cell phone; (3) without conditions such as ankle monitors or
tracking devices; and (4) with all clothing and outerwear she 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.
6. 	Respondents are ENJOINED from re-detaining Petitioner under this same
statutory theory, absent materially changed circumstances.
7. 	Within thirty (30) days of final judgment in this action, Petitioner may
move to recover attorneys’ fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act,
28 U.S.C. § 2412(d).
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: February 2, 2026 	s/Donovan W. Frank
DONOVAN W. FRANK
United States District Judge
CASE 0:26-cv-00829-DWF-DJF Doc. 7 Filed 02/02/26 Page 5 of 5