Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Ronstadt A.,
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.
File No. 26-cv-845 (ECT/JFD)
OPINION AND ORDER
Kira Aakre Kelley, Climate Defense Project, Minneapolis, MN, for Petitioner Mercy M.
Ana H. Voss and Matthew Isihara, United States Attorney’s Office, Minneapolis, MN, for
Respondents Pamela Bondi, Kristi Noem, Todd M. Lyons, and David Easterwood.
Petitioner Ronstadt A. is a Cameroonian citizen who resides in Brooklyn Park,
Minnesota. 	Pet. [ECF No. 1] ¶¶ 7, 12. 	Ronstadt “has a pending asylum application and
does not have a final order of removal.” Id. ¶ 13. Ronstadt also has “a valid work permit.”
Id. ¶ 14. 	The dates on which Ronstadt entered the United States, applied for asylum, or
received a work permit have not been provided, either by her or Respondents.1 See Pet.;
1 	In their response to Ronstadt’s Petition, Respondents reference a Notice to Appear
dated November 23, 2024, see ECF No. 4 at 1, but Ronstadt’s Notice to Appear has not
been filed in this case, see Dkt.
CASE 0:26-cv-00845-ECT-JFD Doc. 5 Filed 02/02/26 Page 1 of 6

2
ECF No. 4. On January 29, 2026, ICE arrested Ronstadt “when she came to Fort Snelling
to complete her monthly check-in with immigration.” Id. ¶ 15. Ronstadt’s arrest was part
of “Operation Metro Surge.” Id. ¶ 16. The Petition alleges, “[o]n information and belief”
that Respondents had no warrant for Ronstadt’s arrest. Id. ¶ 52. Ronstadt is “believed to
be held at the Bishop Hennry Whipple Federal Building” in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Id.
¶ 7, 19. Respondents do not contest any of the facts alleged in the Petition. See ECF No. 4
at 2.
Ronstadt challenges her detention under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Pet. ¶ 2. She claims she
has been wrongly classified as a § 1225(b)(2) detainee (whose detention is mandatory)
rather than a § 1226(a) detainee (whose detention is discretionary and who is entitled to a
bond hearing). 	Pet. ¶¶ 22–29; see Jose J.O.E. v. Bondi, 797 F. Supp. 3d 957, 961–62
(D. Minn. 	2025) 	(explaining 	legal 	framework). 	According 	to 	Ronstadt, 	that
misclassification and denial of a bond hearing violate her right to due process under the
Fifth Amendment, the Immigration and Nationality Act, and the Administrative Procedure
Act. 	See Pet. ¶¶ 30–46. 	Ronstadt seeks issuance of an order directing her immediate
release without conditions in the State of Minnesota, at a safe time and place communicated
in advance to counsel, and with all personal effects that were in her possession at the time
of her arrest; issuance of an order enjoining her transfer outside of this District during the
pendency of her Petition; that this Court “[r]etain jurisdiction over this matter to decide
any future motion for an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs”; and “any other
and further relief that this Court may deem just and proper.” Pet. at 15–16.
CASE 0:26-cv-00845-ECT-JFD Doc. 5 Filed 02/02/26 Page 2 of 6

3
Respondents argue that Ronstadt is subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1225(b)(2). See ECF No. 4 at 2–8. This raises an issue of statutory interpretation2 that
courts in this District have repeatedly considered and rejected, and it will be rejected here
as well.
Ronstadt has shown she has been misclassified under § 1225(b)(2) rather than
§ 1226(a). 	As courts have explained, the former statute applies to applicants “seeking
admission,” and the latter to “aliens already in the country.” 	8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A);
Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281, 289 (2018) (construing 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and (c));
see Francisco T. v. Bondi, 797 F. Supp. 3d 970, 974–76 (D. Minn. 2025); Belsai D.S. v.
Bondi, --- F. Supp. 3d ---, No. 25-cv-3682 (KMM/EMB), 2025 WL 2802947, at *6–7 (D.
Minn. Oct. 1, 2025); Eliseo A.A. v. Olson, --- F. Supp. 3d ---, No. 25-cv-3381 (JWB/DJF),
2025 WL 2886729, at *2–4 (D. Minn. Oct. 8, 2025); Avila v. Bondi, No. 25-cv-3741
(JRT/SGE), 2025 WL 2976539, at *5–7 (D. Minn. Oct. 21, 2025), appeal filed, No. 25-
3248 (8th Cir. Nov. 10, 2025); Andres R.E. v. Bondi, No. 25-cv-3946 (NEB/DLM), 2025
WL 3146312, at *2–3 (D. Minn. Nov. 4, 2025); E.M. v. Noem, 25-cv-3975 (SRN/DTS),
2025 WL 3157839, at *4–8 (D. Minn. Nov. 12, 2025); Santos M.C. v. Olson, No. 25-cv-
4264 (PJS/DJF), 2025 WL 3281787, at *2–3 (D. Minn. Nov. 25, 2025). As of this writing,
only one federal court of appeals has ruled on the question, and it reached the same
2 	To the extent Respondents challenge this Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction to
consider Ronstadt’s Petition, consistent with previous rulings on this issue, I find that the
jurisdiction-stripping provisions of § 1252(a)(5), (b)(9), and (g) do not apply to “the narrow
question whether a noncitizen is subject to discretionary detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226
or mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2).” 	Fernando F.P.D. v. Brott, No. 25-cv-4455
(ECT/ECW), 2025 WL 3675151, at *2 (D. Minn. Dec. 17, 2025) (citing cases).
CASE 0:26-cv-00845-ECT-JFD Doc. 5 Filed 02/02/26 Page 3 of 6

4
conclusion. See Castañon-Nava v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 161 F.4th 1048 (7th Cir.
2025). Ronstadt’s detention falls under § 1226(a) and not § 1225(b)(2).3
Respondents argue that this case is distinct from others this Court has decided
because Ronstadt’s pursuit of asylum mandates her detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2).
See ECF No. 4 at 7–8. On this thin record, and consistent with my decision in Misael T. v.
Bondi, I conclude that Ronstadt’s asylum application alone does not change the conclusion
that her detention falls under § 1226. No. 26-cv-263 (ECT/EMB), 2026 WL 146510, at *2
(D. Minn. Jan. 20, 2026).
The final issue is the appropriate remedy. 	Section 1226 provides that “[o]n a
warrant issued by the Attorney General, an alien may be arrested and detained.”
8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) (emphasis added). 	“Issuance of a warrant is a necessary condition to
justify 	discretionary 	detention 	under 	section 	1226(a).” 	Chogllo 	Chafla 	v.
Scott, --- F. Supp. 3d ---, No. 2:25-cv-00437, 2025 WL 2688541, at *11 (D. Me. Sep. 21,
2025), appeal filed (Nov. 7, 2025). 	“[I]t follows that absent a warrant a noncitizen may
not be arrested and detained under section 1226(a).” 	Id. (emphasis in original); accord
Chiliquinga Yumbillo v. Stamper, No. 2:25-cv-00479, 2025 WL 2783642, at *5 (D. Me.
Sep. 30, 2025); J.A.C.P. v. Wofford, No. 1:25-cv-01354, 2025 WL 3013328, at *8 (E.D.
Cal. Oct. 27, 2025); see also Florida v. United States, 660 F. Supp. 3d 1239, 1276 (N.D.
Fla. 2023) (stating § 1226 “is not even triggered unless an arrest warrant is issued” and that
“[i]f [an] alien has not been arrested on a warrant, then the subsequent provisions giving
3 	Respondents do not argue that Ronstadt is subject to mandatory detention pursuant
to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c), nor do they argue that a statutory scheme other than that raised in
the Petition would apply to Ronstadt’s detention. See ECF No. 4.
CASE 0:26-cv-00845-ECT-JFD Doc. 5 Filed 02/02/26 Page 4 of 6

5
the Attorney General discretion to detain or release ‘the arrested alien’ are likewise not
triggered”), appeal dismissed, 2023 WL 5212561 (11th Cir. July 11, 2023). Here, Ronstadt
alleged she was arrested without a warrant. Pet. ¶ 52. Respondents were ordered to include
in their Answer “[w]hether the absence of a warrant preceding [Ronstadt’s] arrest
necessitates [Ronstadt’s] immediate release.” See ECF No. 3 at 2. Respondents have not
produced a warrant, nor have they advanced any specific argument that Ronstadt’s release
is an unwarranted remedy. See ECF No. 4.
“[R]elease is an available and appropriate remedy” for “detention that lacks a lawful
predicate.” 	Order on Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus at 6, Vedat C. v. Bondi, No.
25-cv-4642 (JWB/DTS) (D. Minn. Dec. 19, 2025), ECF No. 9 (citing Munaf v. Geren,
553 U.S. 674, 693 (2008)). 	“Where the record shows Respondents have not identified a
valid statutory basis for detention in the first place, the remedy is not to supply one through
further proceedings.” 	Id.; see Chogllo Chafla, --- F. Supp. 3d ---, 2025 WL 2688541, at
*11 (“Since the Government did not comply with the plain language of section 1226(a),
[petitioners’] immediate release is justified.”); J.A.C.P., 2025 WL 3013328, at *8 (same);
Chiliquinga Yumbillo, 2025 WL 2783642, at *5 (reaching same conclusion); see also
Munaf, 553 U.S. at 693 (“Habeas is at its core a remedy for unlawful executive detention.
The typical remedy for such detention is, of course, release.” (citation modified)).4
4 	The resolution of this statutory-interpretation question in Ronstadt’s favor makes it
unnecessary to address the Petition’s remaining grounds.
CASE 0:26-cv-00845-ECT-JFD Doc. 5 Filed 02/02/26 Page 5 of 6

6
ORDER
Therefore, based on the foregoing, and on all the files, records, and proceedings
herein, IT IS ORDERED THAT Petitioner Ronstadt A.’s Verified Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus [ECF No. 1] is GRANTED as follows:
1. 	Petitioner is not subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2).
2. 	Respondents shall release Petitioner from custody as follows:
a. 	If Petitioner remains detained in Minnesota, Respondents shall release
Petitioner from custody as soon as practicable without conditions, but not later than 48
hours after entry of this Order.
b. 	If Petitioner has been moved outside of Minnesota, as soon as
practicable, but not later than 72 hours after entry of this Order, Respondents shall return
Petitioner to Minnesota and then release Petitioner from custody without conditions.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: February 2, 2026, at 4:00 p.m. 	s/ Eric C. Tostrud
Eric C. Tostrud
United States District Court
CASE 0:26-cv-00845-ECT-JFD Doc. 5 Filed 02/02/26 Page 6 of 6