Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Caryelis B.B.B.,
Petitioner,
v.
Pamela Bondi, Attorney General; Todd M.
Lyons, Acting Director of Immigration
and Customs Enforcement; Kristi Noem,
Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland
Security; David Easterwood, Acting
Director, St. Paul Field Office
Immigration and Customs Enforcement;
and Dawanna S. Witt, Hennepin County
Sheriff,
Respondents.
Civil No. 26-917 (DWF/SGE)
MEMORANDUM
OPINION AND ORDER
INTRODUCTION
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Caryelis B.B.B.’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)(A). (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 Venezuela and a resident of St. Paul, Minnesota. (Doc.
No. 1 ¶¶ 7,12.) She has a five-year-old son. (Id. ¶ 14.) She was granted Temporary
Protected Status (“TPS”) from January 10, 2025 to April 2, 2025. (Doc. No. 7-1.)
CASE 0:26-cv-00917-DWF-SGE Doc. 11 Filed 02/04/26 Page 1 of 5

2
On January 31, 2026, Petitioner was arrested by U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (“ICE”) on her way to the grocery store. (Doc. No. 1 ¶ 15.) ICE agents
smashed the window of her car and forcibly removed her from the vehicle. (Id.) This
event left her with injuries such as torn skin from broken glass. (Doc. No. 10 ¶¶ 4-5.)
The ICE agents left her car abandoned on the street and took the keys with them. (Doc.
No. 1 ¶ 15.) She was first detained at the Whipple Federal Building in Minnesota. (Id.
¶ 7.) She has since been transported to the Crow Wing County jail. (Doc. No. 10 ¶ 6.)
Another person who was detained with Petitioner at the Whipple Federal Building
reported that Petitioner has received only a few apples to eat since her arrest and is still
covered in blood and glass from her car window. (Id. ¶ 5.)
Petitioner filed the Petition on January 31, 2026. (Doc. No. 1 at 14.) 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. (Id. ¶¶ 29-45.) 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(a). (Id. at 14.) On February 1, 2026, the Court
ordered Respondents to answer the Petition on or before February 3, 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 response. (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
CASE 0:26-cv-00917-DWF-SGE Doc. 11 Filed 02/04/26 Page 2 of 5

3
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, pointing the Court to their arguments in a pending
Eighth Circuit case: Avila v. Bondi, No. 25-3248, and noting that Petitioner’s TPS has
expired. (Doc. No. 6.) 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
immigration judges with the discretion to grant release on bond to noncitizens subject to
removal proceedings. See id. § 1226(a). Petitioner’s previous TPS does not change this
analysis.
Here, Petitioner is not an arriving noncitizen because she has been in the United
States for over a year, if not longer. See Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281, 289 (2018)
(noting that § 1226(a) applies to “certain aliens already in the country”). Petitioner is
CASE 0:26-cv-00917-DWF-SGE Doc. 11 Filed 02/04/26 Page 3 of 5

4
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) 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. 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:
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.
CASE 0:26-cv-00917-DWF-SGE Doc. 11 Filed 02/04/26 Page 4 of 5

5
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.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: February 4, 2026 	s/Donovan W. Frank
DONOVAN W. FRANK
United States District Judge
CASE 0:26-cv-00917-DWF-SGE Doc. 11 Filed 02/04/26 Page 5 of 5