Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Claire 	Glenn, 	CLIMATE 	DEFENSE 	PROJECT, 	Post 	Office 	Box 	7040,
Minneapolis, MN 55407, for Petitioner.
Ana H. Voss, Trevor Brown, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, 300 South
Fourth Street, Suite 600, Minneapolis, MN 55415 for Respondents.
Petitioner Luis A.Z.H. was arrested and detained by United States Immigration and
Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) in early January 2026. 	Luis A.Z.H. petitions for a writ of
habeas corpus, arguing that he is being detained unlawfully. Because the Court concludes
LUIS A.Z.H.,
Petitioner,
v.
PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General of the
United States;
KRISTI NOEM, Secretary, U.S. Department
of Homeland Security;
TODD M. LYONS, Acting Director,
Immigration and Customs Enforcement;
and
DAVID EASTERWOOD, Acting Director, St.
Paul Field Office, U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement;
Respondents.
Civil No. 26-915 (JRT/LIB)
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
GRANTING PETITION FOR WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS
CASE 0:26-cv-00915-JRT-LIB Doc. 6 Filed 02/04/26 Page 1 of 5

-2-
that Luis A.Z.H.’s detention is unlawful, the Court will grant his petition for habeas corpus
and order that he be released from custody.
BACKGROUND
Luis A.Z.H. is a citizen of Ecuador and a resident of Minneapolis, Minnesota.
(Verified Pet. Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Pet.”) ¶ 12, Jan. 31, 2026, Docket No. 2.) 	He
entered the United States in December 2022 and has no criminal record. (Id. ¶¶ 13, 16.)
In early January 2026,1 ICE arrested Luis A.Z.H. after dropping his daughter off at
daycare. (Id. ¶ 17.) He was taken into custody and detained in Minnesota. (Id. ¶ 19.) A
few days later, Petitioner was transferred to Texas and then to New Mexico. 	(Id.)
Petitioner is believed to be currently detained at the Cibola County Correctional Center in
New Mexico. 	(Id.) 	Petitioner also suffers from lupus, and he states that while in
detention, Respondents have not given him access to his medications. (Id. ¶ 15.)
On January 31, 2026, Luis A.Z.H. filed a Verified Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus.
(Docket No. 2.) He alleges that his continued detention is unlawful and requests that the
Court order his immediate release, or alternatively, a bond hearing. (Id. ¶¶ 30–63.) The
next day, the Court issued an order that (1) enjoining Respondents from transferring Luis
A.Z.H. outside the District of Minnesota pending a ruling on his habeas petition, and (2)
1 The Petition states that Petitioner was arrested on either January 6, 2026, or January 10,
2026. (Pet. ¶¶ 7, 17.) This discrepancy is immaterial to the resolution of the matter.
CASE 0:26-cv-00915-JRT-LIB Doc. 6 Filed 02/04/26 Page 2 of 5

-3-
directed Respondents to file an answer by February 3, 2026. (Order, Feb. 1, 2026, Docket
No. 4.) Respondents answered the Petition. (Resp., Feb. 3, 2026, Docket No. 5.)
DISCUSSION
Respondents argue that Luis A.Z.H. is subject to mandatory detention under 8
U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2).2 	After thorough review of the parties’ filings, the Court concludes
that the legal issues presented by Luis A.Z.H.’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). 	The factual record before the Court shows that Luis
A.Z.H. was arrested while already in the United States. For the same reasons articulated
in Herrera Avila and Romero Santuario, the Court concludes that it possesses jurisdiction
over this petition, and that Luis A.Z.H.’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 has 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);
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
2 Because Respondents do not dispute venue, the Court considers that issue to be waived.
See Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 452 (2004) (Kennedy, J. concurring) (noting that the “proper
location for a habeas petition is best understood as a question of personal jurisdiction or venue”).
CASE 0:26-cv-00915-JRT-LIB Doc. 6 Filed 02/04/26 Page 3 of 5

-4-
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.”).
Accordingly, the Court will grant Luis A.Z.H.’s petition for writ of habeas corpus and
will order that he be returned to Minnesota and then released from custody.
ORDER
Based on the foregoing, and all the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. 	Petitioner Luis A.Z.H.’s Verified Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Docket No. [2])
is GRANTED, as follows:
a. 	Petitioner 	is 	not 	subject 	to 	mandatory 	detention 	under 	8 	U.S.C.
§ 1225(b)(2).
b. 	Respondents shall TRANSPORT Petitioner and all his personal effects 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 is being detained 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-00915-JRT-LIB Doc. 6 Filed 02/04/26 Page 4 of 5

-5-
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 such as location tracking devices.
f. 	Respondents shall provide Petitioner with his prescription medications.
g. 	Both 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 4, 2026 	_____/s/ John R. Tunheim ____
at Minneapolis, Minnesota, 	JOHN R. TUNHEIM
at 2:35 P.M. 	United States District Judge
CASE 0:26-cv-00915-JRT-LIB Doc. 6 Filed 02/04/26 Page 5 of 5