Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Abdulahi A.M.,
Petitioner,
v.
Pamela Bondi, Attorney General; Kristi
Noem, Secretary, U.S. Department of
Homeland Security; Department of
Homeland Security; Todd M. Lyons,
Acting Director of Immigration and
Customs Enforcement; Immigration &
Customs Enforcement; Daren K.
Margolin, Director for Executive Office
for Immigration Review; Executive Office
for Immigration Review; and David
Easterwood, Acting Director, St. Paul
Field Office, Immigration and Customs
Enforcement,
Respondents.
Civil No. 26-1018 (DWF/DLM)
MEMORANDUM
OPINION AND ORDER
INTRODUCTION
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Abdulahi A.M.’s petition for a writ of
habeas corpus (the “Petition”). (Doc. No. 1.) Respondents assert authority to detain
Petitioner under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A). (Doc. No. 4.) For the reasons set forth below,
the Court grants the Petition and orders Respondents to release Petitioner immediately.
BACKGROUND
Petitioner is a citizen of Ethiopia and has been present in the United States since
October 2024. (Doc. No. 1 ¶¶ 21, 37-38.) Petitioner was previously picked up by
CASE 0:26-cv-01018-DWF-DLM Doc. 6 Filed 02/06/26 Page 1 of 6

2
Respondents, processed, and released on his own recognizance under an Order of Release
on Recognizance (“OREC”) form. (See id. ¶ 39.) Notably, OREC forms are used for
release under 8 U.S.C. § 1226. See Order of Release on Recognizance, U.S. Immigr. &
Customs Enf’t, https://www.ice.gov/doclib/detention/checkin/I_220A_OREC.pdf (last
visited Feb. 6, 2026). After this, Respondents commenced removal proceedings against
him under 8 U.S.C. § 1229a. (Doc. No. 1 ¶ 40.) Petitioner has complied with all
conditions of his release and has not committed any offenses that would require his
detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c). (Id. ¶¶ 43-44.) On February 2, 2026, Respondents
detained Petitioner at a regular check-in. (Id. ¶ 42.) Petitioner was detained in Minnesota
at the time of filing. (Id. ¶¶ 21, 45.) At some point he was moved to a detention center in
El Paso, Texas. 1 (Doc. No. 4 at 1.) Respondents claim that they are in the process of
transferring Petitioner back to Minnesota. (Id. at 2.)
Petitioner filed the Petition on February 3, 2026. (Doc. No. 1 at 31.) Petitioner
claims that his detention violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, the
Fourth Amendment, the Immigration and Nationality Act, the Administrative Procedure
Act, and various regulations. (Id. ¶¶ 76-116.) Petitioner asks the Court to order his
immediate release, or alternatively, order Respondents to conduct a bond hearing
consistent with 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within five business days. (Id. at 29-30.) Also on
1 	Based on Petitioner’s allegation that he was in Minnesota at the time of filing, it
appears that Respondents violated the Court’s order enjoining Respondents from moving
Petitioner out of Minnesota while this action is pending. The Court will not order
contempt proceedings at this time, so long as Petitioner is promptly returned to
Minnesota and released.
CASE 0:26-cv-01018-DWF-DLM Doc. 6 Filed 02/06/26 Page 2 of 6

3
February 3, 2026, the Court enjoined Respondents from moving Petitioner from this
District, and ordered Respondents to file an answer to the Petition by February 5, 2026,
at 12:00 p.m. (Doc. No. 3.) Respondents filed an answer asserting authority to detain
Petitioner under 8 U.S.C. § 1225. (Doc. No. 4.)
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 assert that Petitioner is subject to mandatory detention under
§ 1225(b)(2)(A) but fail to address the impact of his prior release under § 1226.
Respondents do not show that Petitioner’s OREC was revoked or that there was any
change in circumstances that would warrant its revocation. Respondents also admit that
this case is similar, both legally and factually, to this Court’s previous cases where it
found that § 1226 applies to those in Petitioner’s position, not § 1225. (Doc. No. 4 at 3.)
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
CASE 0:26-cv-01018-DWF-DLM Doc. 6 Filed 02/06/26 Page 3 of 6

4
subject to removal proceedings. See id. § 1226(a). Sections 1225 and 1226 are meant to
address different populations, they are not interchangeable. See Adriana M.Y.M. v.
Easterwood, No. 26-cv-213, 2026 WL 184721, at *4 (D. Minn. Jan. 24, 2026) (citing
Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281, 285-90 (2018)). Respondents previously found that
§ 1226 applied to Petitioner and they have not offered any explanation as to what
changed to categorize him differently.
Moreover, even if Respondents had not already released Petitioner under § 1226,
the Court would still find him subject to the discretionary provisions of § 1226. As this
Court has explained in previous cases, 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). Respondents concede that this case is not
distinguishable from those cases. The Court will not depart from its prior reasoning.
Petitioner is 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 detention. 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
CASE 0:26-cv-01018-DWF-DLM Doc. 6 Filed 02/06/26 Page 4 of 6

5
detention and provide documents of such (see Doc. No. 3), Respondents did not do so,
(see Doc. No. 4). 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, subject to the conditions of his prior Order of Release on Recognizance.
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 additional conditions or any kind of
tracking device; and (4) with all clothing and outerwear he was wearing at the time of
CASE 0:26-cv-01018-DWF-DLM Doc. 6 Filed 02/06/26 Page 5 of 6

6
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 6, 2026 	s/Donovan W. Frank
DONOVAN W. FRANK
United States District Judge
CASE 0:26-cv-01018-DWF-DLM Doc. 6 Filed 02/06/26 Page 6 of 6