Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
DAVIDSON A. V. C.,
Petitioner,
v.
PAMELA BONDI, United States Attorney
General;
KRISTI NOEM, Secretary, U.S. Department
of Homeland Security;
TODD 	M. 	LYONS, 	Acting 	Director,
Immigration and Customs Enforcement;
DAVID EASTERWOOD, Acting Director, St.
Paul Field Office, U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement; and
RYAN SHEA, Sheriff of Freeborn County,
Respondents.
Civil No. 26-1094 (JRT/ECW)
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
GRANTING PETITION FOR WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS
John Hayden, QUANTUM LEX PA, 6800 Frances Avenue South, Suite 405,
Minneapolis, MN 55418, for Petitioner.
David W. Fuller, Matthew Isihara, and Trevor Brown, UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, 300 South Fourth Street, Suite 600, Minneapolis, MN
55415 for Respondents Pamela Bondi, Kristi Noem, Todd M. Lyons, David
Easterwood.
David John Walker, FREEBORN COUNTY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Freeborn
County Government Center, 411 South Broadway Avenue, Albert Lea, MN
56007, for Respondent Ryan Shea.
CASE 0:26-cv-01094-JRT-ECW Doc. 7 Filed 02/10/26 Page 1 of 6

- 2 -
Petitioner Davidson A. V. C. was detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (“ICE”) officials on December 20, 2025, after being boxed in by ICE agents in
his vehicle. (Verified Pet. for Writ of Habeas Corpus ¶ 17, Feb. 5, 2026, Docket No. 1.) On
February 5, 2026, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, challenging the
lawfulness of his detention. (Id.) Because the Court concludes that Petitioner is being
detained unlawfully, the Court will grant the petition and order Petitioner’s immediate
release.
DISCUSSION
Petitioner Davidson A. V. C. is a citizen of Ecuador and a resident of Burnsville,
Minnesota. 	(Pet. ¶ 7.) 	He has a pending asylum application and does not have a final
order of removal. 	(Id. ¶ 16.) 	Petitioner is currently detained in Freeborn County,
Minnesota. (Id. ¶ 12.)
Respondents rely on 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b) to justify Petitioner’s detention. The Court
rejects that justification. After thorough review of the parties’ filings, the Court concludes
that the legal issues presented by Petitioner’s habeas petition are subject to the same
analysis the Court recently employed in Herrera Avila v. Bondi, Civ. No. 25-3741, 2025 WL
2976539 (D. Minn. Oct. 21, 2025); Romero Santuario v. Bondi, Civ. 25-4296, 2025 WL
3469577 (D. Minn, Dec. 2, 2025); and Iishaar-Abdi v. Klang, Civ. No. 25-4686, 2025 WL
3764853, at *1 n.2 (D. Minn. Dec. 30, 2025). Section 1225(b)(2) does not authorize the
warrantless, notice-less arrest of an individual already present in the United States.
CASE 0:26-cv-01094-JRT-ECW Doc. 7 Filed 02/10/26 Page 2 of 6

- 3 -
The Government urges the Court to find that an asylum seeker is “‘seeking
admission’ under the narrow construction of § 1225(b)(2)[.]’” (Resp. at 8, Feb. 8, 2026,
Docket No. 5.) As support, Respondents cite a single out-of-district court case, Chen v.
Almodovar, Civ. No. 25-8350, 2025 WL 3484855 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 4, 2025). There, the court
held that an “applicant for admission” includes both arriving noncitizens and those who,
although already physically present within the United States, have not been admitted into
the United States. 	Id. at *4. As outlined in Mahamed C.A. v. Noem, Chen is an outlier
among the judicial consensus across the country. Civ. No. 25-4551, 2025 WL 3771299, at
*3 (D. Minn. Dec. 16, 2025), R&R adopted sub nom., Awaale v. Noem, Civ. No. 25-4551,
2025 WL 3754012 (D. Minn. Dec. 29, 2025). Indeed, Chen has not been followed by any
other court in the Southern District of New York—or the Second Circuit more broadly. Id.
(collecting cases).
As this Court has previously stated, the filing of an asylum application by Petitioner
does not affect the Court's analysis under Herrera Avila and Romero Santuario. Iishaar-
Abdi, 2025 WL 3764853, at *1 n.2. 	Nor have other courts in this district drawn a
distinction between applicants for asylum and other categories of noncitizens who are
present within the borders of the United States. See Mahamed C.A., 2025 WL 3771299,
at *3. Thus, for the same reasons articulated in Herrera Avila and Romero Santuario, the
Court concludes that Petitioner’s detention is not authorized by § 1225(b)(2).
CASE 0:26-cv-01094-JRT-ECW Doc. 7 Filed 02/10/26 Page 3 of 6

- 4 -
To the extent Respondents argue that Davidson A. V. C. is an “arriving alien” by
virtue of his asylum application and thus subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1225(b)(1)(B)(ii), the Court rejects this argument for the reasons stated in Mervis E.A.M.
v. 	Noem, 	Civ. 	No. 	26-861, 	2026 	WL 	323636 	(D. 	Minn. 	Feb. 	6, 	2026). 	Section
1225(b)(1)(B)(ii) does not mandate detention of asylum seekers who have been present
in the United States for years, like the Petitioner here. Mervis E.A.M., 2026 WL 323636
at *1; see also Abdirashid H.M. v. Noem, Civ. No. 25-4779, 2026 WL 127698, at *3 (D.
Minn. Jan. 9, 2026). Therefore, Davidson A. V. C.’s detention is not authorized by 8 U.S.C.
§ 1225(b)(1).
The Court therefore turns to the proper remedy. Where, as here, (1) Respondents
erroneously assert that a detainee is being held pursuant to § 1225(b) 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 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.”).
The Court will grant Davidson A. V. C.’s petition for writ of habeas corpus and will
order that he be released from custody.
CASE 0:26-cv-01094-JRT-ECW Doc. 7 Filed 02/10/26 Page 4 of 6

- 5 -
ORDER
Based on the foregoing, and all the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. 	Petitioner Davidson A. V. C.’s Verified Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Docket
No. [1]) is GRANTED, as follows:
a. 	Petitioner is not subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b).
b. 	If Petitioner is being detained outside of Minnesota, Respondents shall
TRANSPORT Petitioner 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.
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 	license, 	passports, 	or 	immigration 	documents, 	and 	without
conditions such as location tracking devices.
CASE 0:26-cv-01094-JRT-ECW Doc. 7 Filed 02/10/26 Page 5 of 6

- 6 -
f. 	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 13,
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 10, 2026
at Minneapolis, Minnesota. 	JOHN R. TUNHEIM
Time: 10:16 a.m. 	United States District Judge
CASE 0:26-cv-01094-JRT-ECW Doc. 7 Filed 02/10/26 Page 6 of 6