Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Jesus L.R.V.,
Petitioner,
v.
Mike Jambor, Warden, Kandiyohi County
Jail, in their official capacities; David
Easterwood, Bloomington Field Office
Director, Immigration and Customs
Enforcement and Removal Operations
(ICE/ERO); U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement, in their official
capacities; Kristi Noem, Secretary of the
Department of Homeland Security; U.S.
Department of Homeland Security (DHS),
in their official capacities; Pamela Bondi,
Attorney General of the United States, in
their official capacities; and Todd Lyons,
Director, Immigration and Customs
Enforcement, in their official capacities,
Respondents.
Civil No. 26-1047 (DWF/ECW)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER
INTRODUCTION
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Jesus L.R.V.’s petition for a writ of
habeas corpus alleging that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution and laws of
the United States (the “Petition”). (Doc. No. 1.) Respondents oppose the Petition. (Doc.
No. 7.) For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants the Petition and orders
Respondents to immediately release Petitioner.
CASE 0:26-cv-01047-DWF-ECW Doc. 8 Filed 02/09/26 Page 1 of 6

2
BACKGROUND
Petitioner is a citizen of Mexico who has resided in the United States since June
2003. (Doc. No. 1 ¶¶ 16-17.) Petitioner is married and the father of two U.S. citizen
children and is his family’s sole financial provider. (Id. ¶ 18.) He has maintained stable
long-term employment in Minnesota, including full-time employment at Perkins in
Eagan, Minnesota, since August 2010. (Id. ¶ 19.) Petitioner has no criminal history in
the United States or Mexico. (Id. ¶ 20.)
He has both a pending asylum application and derivative U-Visa petition. (Id.
¶ 10.) At all times, Petitioner has complied with the immigration process, appearing for
hearings and maintaining a consistent address and employment. (Id. ¶ 21.) Petitioner
was in active removal proceeding and he and his spouse were scheduled for an individual
merits hearing on their asylum petitions on July 1, 2026. (Id. at 1.)
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents arrested Petitioner on
December 31, 2025, at Perkins, his place of employment, without a warrant. (Id. ¶ 25.)
Petitioner is detained at Kandiyohi County Jail in Willmar, Minnesota. (Id. ¶¶ 1, 6.)
Petitioner filed the Petition on February 4, 2026. (Id. at 8.) Petitioner asserts that
his detention is unlawful because it violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth
Amendment and the Immigration and Nationality Act. (Id. ¶¶ 28-32.) Petitioner
requests, among other things, immediate release from detention or an order requiring
Respondents to provide him with a bond hearing. (Id. at 7-8.) On February 4, 2026, the
Court ordered Respondents to answer the Petition on or before February 6, 2026, at
12:00 p.m. CT, and enjoined Respondents from moving Petitioner from this District
CASE 0:26-cv-01047-DWF-ECW Doc. 8 Filed 02/09/26 Page 2 of 6

3
pending further order. (Doc. No. 6.) Respondents timely filed a form response. (Doc.
No. 7.)
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 submitted a form response, arguing that Petitioner is subject to
mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A), and pointing the Court to their
arguments in a pending Eighth Circuit case: Avila v. Bondi, No. 25-3248. (See Doc.
No. 7.) 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
CASE 0:26-cv-01047-DWF-ECW Doc. 8 Filed 02/09/26 Page 3 of 6

4
immigration judges with the discretion to grant release on bond to noncitizens subject to
removal proceedings. See id. § 1226(a).
Here, Petitioner is not an arriving noncitizen because he has been in the United
States for nearly twenty-three years and has a pending application for asylum and
pending derivate U-Visa petition. See Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281, 289 (2018)
(noting that § 1226(a) applies to “certain aliens already in the country”). Petitioner is
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), as Petitioner is here,
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. 6), Respondents did not do so,
(see Doc. No. 7). 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
CASE 0:26-cv-01047-DWF-ECW Doc. 8 Filed 02/09/26 Page 4 of 6

5
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.
4. 	Within three (3) days of the date of this Order, Respondents shall provide
the Court with a status update confirming Petitioner’s release.
5. 	Respondents are directed to release Petitioner:
a. 	In Minnesota;
b. 	With all personal documents and belongings, such as his driver’s
license, passport, other immigration documents, and cell phone;
c. 	Without any conditions on release, including but not limited to
requiring Petitioner to sign an “Order of Release on Recognizance” or requiring
Petitioner to enroll and complete an “Alternatives to Detention” program;
d. 	Without any tracking devices; and
CASE 0:26-cv-01047-DWF-ECW Doc. 8 Filed 02/09/26 Page 5 of 6

6
e. 	With all clothing and outerwear he was wearing at the time of
detention, or other proper winter attire.
6. 	Respondents shall provide reasonable advance notice to counsel to arrange
for a safe release of Petitioner.
7. 	Respondents are ENJOINED from re-detaining Petitioner under this same
statutory theory, absent materially changed circumstances.
8. 	Within thirty (30) days of final judgment in this action, Petitioner may
move to recover attorneys’ fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act,
28 U.S.C. § 2412.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: February 9, 2026 	s/Donovan W. Frank
DONOVAN W. FRANK
United States District Judge
CASE 0:26-cv-01047-DWF-ECW Doc. 8 Filed 02/09/26 Page 6 of 6