Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Kimberley Woods, KHANH NGUYEN LAW OFFICE, 1001 Washington Avenue
South, Minneapolis, MN 55415, for Petitioner.
Ana H. Voss, David R. Hackworthy, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE,
300 	South 	Fourth 	Street, 	Suite 	600, 	Minneapolis, 	MN 	55415 	for
Respondents.
ELVIZ H.L.L.
Petitioner,
v.
KRISTI NOEM, Secretary, U.S. Department
of Homeland Security;
DAVID EASTERWOOD, Director, St. Paul
Field 	Office, 	U.S. 	Immigration 	and
Customs Enforcement;
TODD M. LYONS, Acting Director, St. Paul
Field 	Office, 	Immigration 	and 	Customs
Enforcement;
PAMELA BONDI, United States Attorney
General;
WARDEN, El Paso Camp East ICE Detention
Facility, El Paso, Texas; and
EXECUTIVE 	OFFICE 	FOR 	IMMIGRATION
REVIEW,
Respondents.
Civil No. 26-877 (JRT/LIB)
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
GRANTING PETITION FOR WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS
CASE 0:26-cv-00877-JRT-LIB Doc. 8 Filed 02/05/26 Page 1 of 6

-2-
On January 30, 2026, Petitioner Elviz H.L.L. filed a Verified Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus. 	(Docket No. 1.) 	He was arrested by U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE) officials on January 27, 2026, and alleges that he is being detained
unlawfully. 	Because the Court concludes that it has jurisdiction, and that Petitioner is
being detained unlawfully, the Court will grant the petition and order Petitioner’s
immediate release.
BACKGROUND
Petitioner is a citizen of Guatemala and a resident of Minneapolis. (Verified Pet.
Writ Habeas Corpus (“Pet.”) ¶¶ 9, 24.) 	He has no criminal history and is employed in
Minnesota. 	(Id. ¶ 8.) 	Petitioner alleges that on January 27, 2026, while on his way to
work, he was arrested by federal officials without a warrant. (Id. ¶ 10.) Respondents filed
an answer on February 3, 2026, arguing both that the Court lacks jurisdiction to hear the
petition and that Petitioner’s detention is lawful. (Response, Feb. 3, 2026, Docket No. 6.)
Petitioner acknowledges in his petition, filed three days after his arrest, that
Respondents had transferred Petitioner to El Paso, Texas prior to the petition’s filing. (Id.
¶ 11.) However, Petitioner now states that “[u]pon information and belief, Petitioner has
been transferred back to the State of Minnesota,” although “that is unverified as the ICE
Detainee Locator currently states to ‘call ICE for information.’” (Obj. to Mot. to Dismiss
or Transfer (“Obj.”) ¶ 4, Feb. 4, 2026, Docket No. 7.)
CASE 0:26-cv-00877-JRT-LIB Doc. 8 Filed 02/05/26 Page 2 of 6

-3-
DISCUSSION
Respondents first challenge this Court’s jurisdiction, relying on the fact that
Petitioner did not file his habeas petition in this District while he was physically detained
here. In a typical case involving a habeas petition brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a), a
petitioner who “seeks to challenge his present physical custody within the United
States . . . should name his warden as respondent and file the petition in the district of
confinement.” Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 447 (2004). But as this Court has noted
in other cases, exceptions exist to the default district-of-confinement rule. See id. at 435;
see also Xia v. King, No. 24-2000, 2025 WL 240792, at *2 (D. Minn. Jan. 17, 2025)
(recognizing the existence of certain exceptions). For example, the Supreme Court has
recognized that when “a prisoner is held in an undisclosed location by an unknown
custodian, it is impossible to apply” the typical rules for determining the proper forum for
a habeas petition. Padilla, 542 U.S. at 450 n.18.
Petitioner informs the Court that Respondents have now returned Petitioner to
Minnesota, seeming to moot any venue problem in this case. (Obj. ¶ 4); see also Rumsfeld
v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 451 (2004) (Kennedy, J., concurring) (“[T]he question of the
proper location for a habeas petition is best understood as a question of personal
jurisdiction or venue.”). But at a minimum, Petitioner’s present location is unclear, and
was also unclear for the days following Petitioner’s arrest, when Petitioner’s counsel
would have been preparing to file the petition. 	(Obj. ¶¶ 4–5.) 	Therefore, even if
Petitioner were still detained in Texas, exceptions to the default jurisdictional rules would
CASE 0:26-cv-00877-JRT-LIB Doc. 8 Filed 02/05/26 Page 3 of 6

-4-
apply, because when “Government-controlled transfers,” like the one in this case are
“executed within hours of detention and before communication with counsel is possible”
such conduct “risk[s] defeating timely judicial review.” 	Adriana M.Y.M. v. Easterwood,
No. 26-213, 2026 WL 184721 (D. Minn. Jan. 24, 2026); see also Xia v. King, No. 24-2000,
2025 WL 240792, at *2 (D. Minn. Jan. 17, 2025) (recognizing the existence of certain
exceptions). For these reasons, the Court finds that it has jurisdiction.
Turning to the merits, Respondents rely on 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) to justify
Petitioner’s detention, and the Court rejects that justification. After thorough review of
the parties’ filings, the Court concludes that the legal issues presented by Petitioner’s
habeas petition are subject to the same analysis the Court recently employed in Herrera
Avila v. Bondi, No. 25-3741, 2025 WL 2976539 (D. Minn. Oct. 21, 2025) and Romero
Santuario v. Bondi, No. 25-4296, 2025 WL 3469577 (D. Minn, Dec. 2, 2025). 	Section
1225(b)(2) does not authorize the warrantless, notice-less arrest of an individual already
present in the United States. 	For the same reasons articulated in Herrera Avila and
Romero Santuario, the Court concludes that Petitioner’s detention is not authorized by
§ 1225(b)(2).
The Court therefore turns to the proper remedy. In some previous cases involving
this issue, the Court concluded that a bond hearing pursuant to § 1226(a) is the
appropriate remedy. 	However, the Court is now persuaded that where, as here,
(1) Respondents erroneously assert that a detainee is being held pursuant to § 1225(b)(2);
CASE 0:26-cv-00877-JRT-LIB Doc. 8 Filed 02/05/26 Page 4 of 6

-5-
and (2) Respondents have not produced a warrant, as is required to effectuate an arrest
pursuant to § 1226(a), the appropriate remedy is release from custody. See, e.g., Ahmed
M. v. Bondi, No. 25-4711, 2026 WL 25627, at *3 (D. Minn. Jan. 5, 2026); Lauro M. v. Bondi,
No. 26-134, 2026 WL 115022, at *3 (D. Minn. Jan. 15, 2026); cf. 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.”).
ORDER
Based on the foregoing, and all the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. 	Petitioner Elviz H.L.L.’s Verified Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Docket No. [1])
is GRANTED, as follows:
a. 	Petitioner 	is 	not 	subject 	to 	mandatory 	detention 	under 	8 	U.S.C.
§ 1225(b)(2).
b. 	If Petitioner is presently detained outside of the District of Minnesota,
Respondents shall TRANSPORT Petitioner to Minnesota and RELEASE
Petitioner from custody immediately. 	Petitioner’s release in Minnesota
must occur no later than 48 hours after the filing of this Order.
c. 	If Petitioner remains in detention in Minnesota, Respondents shall release
Petitioner from custody as soon as practicable, and no later than 48 hours
from the filing of this Order.
CASE 0:26-cv-00877-JRT-LIB Doc. 8 Filed 02/05/26 Page 5 of 6

-6-
d. 	Given the severe weather conditions in Minnesota, Respondents are
ORDERED to coordinate with Petitioner’s counsel to ensure that upon
Petitioner’s release, they are not left outside in dangerous cold. 	It is
preferable to release Petitioner to counsel to ensure humane treatment.
e. 	Respondents must release Petitioner with all personal effects, such as
driver’s 	licenses, 	passports, 	or 	immigration 	documents, 	and 	without
conditions including location tracking or mandatory check-ins.
f. 	The parties shall provide the Court with a status update concerning the
status of Petitioner’s release by no later than 5:00 p.m. on February 7,
2026. 	Further, the parties shall advise the Court whether any additional
proceedings in this matter are required and submit any proposals for the
scope of further litigation.
DATED: February 5, 2026 	_____/s/ John R. Tunheim ____
at Minneapolis, Minnesota. 	JOHN R. TUNHEIM
United States District Judge
CASE 0:26-cv-00877-JRT-LIB Doc. 8 Filed 02/05/26 Page 6 of 6