Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
JOSE ANDRES DUARTE SALAZAR,
Petitioner,
vs.
KRISTI NOEM, in her official
capacity as Secretary of the U.S.
Department of Homeland Security, et
al.,
Respondents.
0:26-CV-1040
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
GRANTING PETITION FOR WRIT
OF HABEAS CORPUS
The petitioner is a noncitizen currently detained by U.S. Immigration
and Customs Enforcement (ICE), seeking a writ of habeas corpus under 28
U.S.C. § 2241. The petitioner contends their detention is unlawful due to denial
of a bond hearing pursuant to 8 C.F.R. §§ 236.1(d)(1) and 1236.1(d)(1). See
filing 1. The government responds that detention is mandatory, not
discretionary, and the petitioner is not eligible to be released. See filing 5.
The briefing demonstrates that the petitioner's application for the writ
only presents issues of law—and the government concedes this point, see filing
5 at 14—so the Court declines to hold a hearing. See § 2243. The Court will
grant the petition for reasons thoroughly articulated by this Court in Velasco
Hurtado v. Bondi, No. 0:26-CV-546, 2026 WL 184884 (D. Minn. Jan. 24, 2026).
The government has produced evidence that the petitioner was arrested
pursuant to an administrative warrant.1 The existence of a warrant matters,
1 The warrant was issued the same day the petitioner was detained, and the government's
evidence doesn't specify whether the warrant was issued before the detention, at the same
time, or after. See filing 6. That could matter, because issuing an administrative warrant
after an arrest isn't good enough to trigger § 1226(a). See Alberto C.M. v. Noem, No. 0:26-cv-
CASE 0:26-cv-01040-JMG-EMB Doc. 7 Filed 02/11/26 Page 1 of 4

2
because it's the warrant that triggers 28 U.S.C. § 1226(a). If arrested pursuant
to a warrant, the petitioner would at least be entitled to a bond hearing; if not
arrested pursuant to a warrant, the petitioner is entitled to outright release.
See Velasco Hurtado v. Bondi, 2026 WL 184884, at *6 (citing Ahmed M. v.
Bondi, No. 25-CV-4711, 2026 WL 25627, at *3 (D. Minn. Jan. 5, 2026)
(collecting cases)).
Except for one thing: The petitioner had already been released. He was
in the government's custody in 2022 and released on recognizance. Filing 1 at
2; filing 6-3 at 4. And a number of courts have held that redetention of a person
previously released under § 1226, without formally revoking that order of
release or following any procedures prior to making a decision that conflicts
with an order of release—violates due process. See, e.g., Feisal O. v. Noem, No.
26-CV-81, 2026 WL 92857, at *3 (D. Minn. Jan. 13, 2026) (citing Barco Mercado
v. Francis, No. 25-CV-6582, 2025 WL 3295903 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 26, 2025));
Abdirashid H. M. v. Noem, No. 25-CV-4779, 2026 WL 127698, at *3 (D. Minn.
Jan. 9, 2026) (citing Qasemi v. Francis, No. 25-CV-10029, 2025 WL 3654098
(S.D.N.Y. Dec. 17, 2025)); see also Budha v. Murray, No. 25-CV-1941, 2026 WL
266429, at *5-8 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 2, 2026); cf. Edita M.S.C. v. Noem, No. 26-CV-
650, 2026 WL 252545, at *2 (D. Minn. Jan. 30, 2026); Kalayci v. Noem, No. 26-
CV-56, 2026 WL 194170, at *2 (N.D. Ind. Jan. 26, 2026).
As a starting point, the Border Patrol first encountered the petitioner
about three miles from a port of entry and roughly 20 yards north of the
Mexican border. Filing 6-3 at 2. If the government was going to contend the
petitioner was an "arriving alien," that was the time. Instead, the government
decided to release him—and when it did so, "it made the decision that he would
380, 2026 WL 184530, at *2-3 (D. Minn. Jan. 23, 2026). But because the Court finds that the
petitioner's prior release on recognizance is dispositive, the Court need not demand
additional details regarding the precise timing of events.
CASE 0:26-cv-01040-JMG-EMB Doc. 7 Filed 02/11/26 Page 2 of 4

3
no longer be subject to the mandatory detention provision of Section 1225(b)(1),
and that his detention must instead be conducted under the discretionary
framework of Section 1226(a)." Abdirashid, 2026 WL 127698, at *3 (quoting
Qasemi, 2025 WL 3654098, at *11). That's consistent with the general principle
that § 1226 applies to non-citizens already in the United States. See Velasco
Hurtado v. Bondi, 2026 WL 184884.
If the government was going to redetain the petitioner lawfully, he would
have been entitled to a suite of procedural protections set forth in applicable
regulations. See Barco Mercado, 2025 WL 3295903, at *11 (explaining
administrative process for revoking release). But there is no evidence here that
an immigration officer exercised discretion to revoke the petitioner's release,
or conducted a custody redetermination until after arresting him. See id. In
short, the petitioner's "redetention pursuant to the wrong statute violated due
process. [The petitioner] had no notice before being redetained nor was he
provided with an opportunity to be heard. More importantly, respondents have
offered no reason why ICE redetained [the petitioner] beyond the fact that he
entered the country illegally." Id. at *12.
Accordingly, the Court concludes that the government's administrative
warrant does not justify revoking the petitioner's prior release on recognizance,
and that outright release from his present confinement is the appropriate
remedy. The government shall immediately—if necessary—return the
petitioner to the state of Minnesota and release the petitioner from custody.2
2 A petitioner seeking release from immigration detention shall be awarded costs and
reasonable attorney's fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. §
2412(d), unless the Court finds that the government's position was substantially justified or
that special circumstances make an award unjust. See Michelin v. Warden Moshannon Valley
Corr. Ctr., No. 24-2990, 2026 WL 263483 (3d Cir. Feb. 2, 2026); see also, e.g., Yeferson G.C. v.
Easterwood, No. 25-CV-4814, 2026 WL 207266, at *3 (D. Minn. Jan. 21), report and
CASE 0:26-cv-01040-JMG-EMB Doc. 7 Filed 02/11/26 Page 3 of 4

4
IT IS ORDERED:
1. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (filing 1) is granted.
2. The government shall, if necessary, immediately return the
petitioner to the District of Minnesota.
3. When the petitioner is in Minnesota, the government shall
immediately release the petitioner from custody with no new
conditions, and shall return any personal property seized
from the petitioner when detained.
4. No later than February 13, 2026, the government shall file
a status report certifying compliance with this Order.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated this 11th day of February, 2026.
BY THE COURT:
John M. Gerrard
Senior United States District Judge
recommendation adopted, 2026 WL 209825 (D. Minn. Jan. 27, 2026); Mairena-Munguia v.
Arnott, No. 25-CV-3318, 2025 WL 3229132, at *5 (W.D. Mo. Nov. 19, 2025); cf. Bah v.
Cangemi, 548 F.3d 680 (8th Cir. 2008) (evaluating the merits of immigration habeas
petitioner's EAJA claim). Any motion for costs and fees pursuant to the EAJA in this case
should be filed within 30 days of the entry of judgment. See § 2412(d)(1)(B).
CASE 0:26-cv-01040-JMG-EMB Doc. 7 Filed 02/11/26 Page 4 of 4