Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Segundo G.U.O.,
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. 26-830 (DWF/LIB)
MEMORANDUM
OPINION AND ORDER
INTRODUCTION
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Segundo G.U.O.’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. 6.) 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 Minneapolis, Minnesota. (Doc.
No. 1 ¶¶ 1, 8, 13.) Petitioner has lived in the United States since 2020 and, before the
encounter detailed in this case, had no interaction with immigration officials, and does
not have a final order of removal. (Id. ¶¶ 13-14.) Petitioner lives with his partner and
CASE 0:26-cv-00830-DWF-LIB Doc. 8 Filed 02/02/26 Page 1 of 5

2
two-year-old daughter in Minneapolis. (Id. ¶ 15.) Petitioner does not have a criminal
record. (Id. ¶ 16.)
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) agents arrested Petitioner on
January 27, 2026, while he was out getting groceries with his family and friends. (Id.
¶ 17.) ICE agents wearing bulletproof vests and masks and driving in unmarked cars
surrounded Petitioner, along with other family and friends, who were inside a vehicle.
(Id.) ICE agents broke the vehicle’s windows and took Petitioner and his cousin into
custody. (Id.) While it is unclear where Petitioner is currently being detained, the
Petition asserts that Respondents quickly transported Petitioner out of the District of
Minnesota. (Id.) In their response, Respondents indicate that they are returning
Petitioner to Minnesota, while also claiming a “jurisdictional problem.” (Doc. No. 6
at 2.)1
Petitioner filed the Petition on January 29, 2026. (Id. at 17.) Petitioner asserts that
his 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. (Id. ¶¶ 36-52.) Petitioner requests, among other things,
an order requiring the return of Petitioner to Minnesota, release from detention or an
order requiring Respondents to provide him with a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226
within seven days, and that his personal property and possessions be returned to him. (Id.
at 16-17.) Also on January 29, 2026, the Court ordered Respondents to answer the
1 	Aside from this single pronouncement, Respondents do not challenge the Court’s
jurisdiction.
CASE 0:26-cv-00830-DWF-LIB Doc. 8 Filed 02/02/26 Page 2 of 5

3
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. 4.) Respondents
timely filed a response. (See Doc. No. 6.)
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 response, arguing that Petitioner is subject to mandatory
detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). (Doc. No. 6.) Respondents summarize the legal
basis for their interpretation of the mandatory detention provision under § 1225 but, in
doing so, do not raise any arguments not already rejected by the Court. 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
CASE 0:26-cv-00830-DWF-LIB Doc. 8 Filed 02/02/26 Page 3 of 5

4
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 over 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,
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. 4), Respondents did not do so,
(see Doc. No. 6). 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-00830-DWF-LIB Doc. 8 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 his 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 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.
6. 	Respondents are ENJOINED from re-detaining Petitioner under this same
statutory theory, absent materially changed circumstances.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: February 2, 2026 	s/Donovan W. Frank
DONOVAN W. FRANK
United States District Judge
CASE 0:26-cv-00830-DWF-LIB Doc. 8 Filed 02/02/26 Page 5 of 5