Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
JAVIER H.O.,
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. 26-1212 (JRT/ECW)
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
GRANTING PETITION FOR WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS
Graham Blair Ojala-Barbour, OJALA-BARBOUR LAW FIRM, 1100 Seventh
Street West, Saint Paul, MN 55102, 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 Javier H.O. was detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
(“ICE”) officials on February 7, 2026. (Verified Pet. for Writ of Habeas Corpus ¶ 1, Feb. 8,
2026, Docket No. 1.) The next day, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus,
CASE 0:26-cv-01212-JRT-ECW Doc. 6 Filed 02/14/26 Page 1 of 5

- 2 -
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 Javier H.O. is a citizen of Mexico. (Id. ¶ 44.) He has lived in the United
States “since the 1990s” and was “granted Parole in Place by USCIS based on the military
service of his . . . son,” who is a U.S. citizen. (Id. ¶ 46–47.) Petitioner is currently detained
in Minnesota. (Id. ¶ 49.)
Respondents rely on 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) 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). 	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 7, 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. 11, 2026,
Docket No. 4.)
CASE 0:26-cv-01212-JRT-ECW Doc. 6 Filed 02/14/26 Page 2 of 5

- 3 -
First, the Court notes that Respondents have not provided any declaration
attesting to the warrant’s validity, confirming the identity of the officials who executed
the warrant or carried out the arrest, or describing the warrant’s legal basis. Second, the
Court observes that the I-200 form is dated the same day as Petitioner’s detention, and it
appears that the same officer both authorized and executed the warrant, indicating that
it was issued either in the field or after Petitioner was arrested and detained. The Court
is persuaded by the reasoning put forth in Castanon Nava v. Department of Homeland
Security—that ICE lacks statutory and regulatory authority to engage in a policy of issuing
I-200 warrants to collaterals in the field without the concurrent or prior issuance of a
notice to appear (NTA). Civ No. 18-3757, 2025 WL 2842146, at *17 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 7, 2025).
And finally, Respondents do not address Petitioner’s allegation that he possesses Parole
in 	Place 	status 	as 	a 	family 	member 	of 	a 	member 	of 	the 	United 	States
military—Respondents do not state whether that status has been revoked, and if so,
whether Petitioner was provided with any process related to that revocation. For these
reasons, the Court concludes that the attached warrant does not alter the Court’s analysis
here.
At bottom, it is clear to the Court that Respondents continue to assert that
§ 1225(b) authorizes Petitioner’s detention, not § 1226. 	And as explained above,
§ 1225(b) is not a lawful basis for detention.
CASE 0:26-cv-01212-JRT-ECW Doc. 6 Filed 02/14/26 Page 3 of 5

- 4 -
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 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 Javier H.O.’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:
1. 	Petitioner Javier H.O.’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.
CASE 0:26-cv-01212-JRT-ECW Doc. 6 Filed 02/14/26 Page 4 of 5

- 5 -
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.
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 17,
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 14, 2026
at Minneapolis, Minnesota. 	JOHN R. TUNHEIM
Time: 9:08 a.m. 	United States District Judge
CASE 0:26-cv-01212-JRT-ECW Doc. 6 Filed 02/14/26 Page 5 of 5