Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
JOSE R. M. M.,
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;
and
DAVID EASTERWOOD, Acting Director, St.
Paul Field Office, U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement,
Respondents.
Civil No. 26-1165 (JRT/DTS)
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
GRANTING PETITION FOR WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS
Kimberly Boche, THE ADVOCATES FOR HUMAN RIGHTS, 330 Second
Avenue South, Suite 800, Minneapolis, MN 55401, for Petitioner.
David W. Fuller and Trevor Brown, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE,
300 	South 	Fourth 	Street, 	Suite 	600, 	Minneapolis, 	MN 	55415, 	for
Respondents.
Petitioner 	Jose 	R. M. M. 	was 	detained 	by 	U.S. 	Immigration 	and 	Customs
Enforcement (“ICE”) officials on February 6, 2026, after being removed from his vehicle.
(Verified Pet. for Writ of Habeas Corpus ¶ 15, Feb. 6, 2026, Docket No. 1.) The same day,
CASE 0:26-cv-01165-JRT-DTS Doc. 7 Filed 02/13/26 Page 1 of 5

- 2 -
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 is a citizen of Ecuador and a resident of Minneapolis. (Pet. ¶ 7.) He has
a pending asylum application and is not subject to a final order of removal. (Id. ¶ 13.)
Petitioner is currently detained by Respondents in Minnesota. (Id. ¶ 7.)
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
mandatory detention of an individual already present in the United States.
Respondents have provided the Court with an administrative warrant dated
February 6, 2026, and contend that “if the Court determines Petitioner is detained under
§ 1226(a) and not under § 1225(b)(2), then the appropriate remedy is to order a custody
redetermination hearing instead of immediate release.” 	(Resp. at 1–2, Feb. 10, 2026,
Docket No. 5.) The warrant, however, provides no justification for Petitioner’s detention.
CASE 0:26-cv-01165-JRT-DTS Doc. 7 Filed 02/13/26 Page 2 of 5

- 3 -
(Resp., Ex. 1.) 	Indeed, although the I-200 form includes a list of 5 determinations that
may be used to justify a Petitioner’s detention, not a single boxed is checked. Moreover,
Respondents do not provide an accompanying declaration explaining the basis for the
warrant, attesting to its validity, or identifying the officers who issued and obtained it.
It is clear to the Court from Respondents’ filings that they continue to assert legal
authority to detain Petitioner under § 1225, not § 1226. And as explained above, § 1225
is not a lawful basis for mandatory detention in this case.
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 valid warrant 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 Jose R. M. M.’s petition for writ of habeas corpus and will order
that he be released from custody.
ORDER
Based on the foregoing, and all the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED that:
CASE 0:26-cv-01165-JRT-DTS Doc. 7 Filed 02/13/26 Page 3 of 5

- 4 -
1. 	Petitioner Jose R. M. M.’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.
f. 	Respondents are ENJOINED from re-detaining Petitioner under this same
statutory theory, absent materially changed circumstances.
CASE 0:26-cv-01165-JRT-DTS Doc. 7 Filed 02/13/26 Page 4 of 5

- 5 -
g. 	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 16,
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 13, 2026
at Minneapolis, Minnesota. 	JOHN R. TUNHEIM
Time: 10:30 a.m. 	United States District Judge
CASE 0:26-cv-01165-JRT-DTS Doc. 7 Filed 02/13/26 Page 5 of 5