Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
ALAN C.E.,
Petitioner,
v.
PAMELA BONDI, United States Attorney
General;
KRISTI NOEM, Secretary, U.S. Department
of Homeland Security;
U.S. 	DEPARTMENT 	OF 	HOMELAND
SECURITY;
TODD 	M. 	LYONS, 	Acting 	Director,
Immigration and Customs Enforcement;
U.S. 	IMMIGRATION 	AND 	CUSTOMS
ENFORCEMENT; and
DAVID EASTERWOOD, Acting Director, St.
Paul Field Office, U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement;
Respondents.
Civil No. 26-1286 (JRT/SGE)
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
GRANTING PETITION FOR WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS
Brian D Clark and Laura Matson, LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP, 100
Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200, Minneapolis, MN 55401; and Katie
Kelley, CHESTNUT CAMBRONE PA, 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite
1700, Minneapolis, MN 55401, for Petitioner.
CASE 0:26-cv-01286-JRT-SGE Doc. 13 Filed 02/14/26 Page 1 of 6

- 2 -
David W. Fuller and Jesus Cruz Rodriguez, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S
OFFICE, 300 South Fourth Street, Suite 600, Minneapolis, MN 55415 for
Respondents.
Petitioner Alan C.E. was detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
(“ICE”) officials on February 10, 2026. (Verified Pet. for Writ of Habeas Corpus ¶ 23, Feb.
10, 2026, Docket No. 1.) 	The same day, 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 Alan C.E. is a citizen of Mexico and a resident of Hopkins, Minnesota.
(Pet. ¶ 15.) He has a pending asylum application. (Id. ¶ 16.) After Respondents detained
Petitioner, they moved him out of Minnesota.1 (See Mem. Supp. Mot. Contempt, Feb. 12,
2026, Docket No. 6.)
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); and Iishaar-Abdi v. Klang, Civ. No. 25-4686, 2025 WL
1 Respondents raise no jurisdictional arguments in this case.
CASE 0:26-cv-01286-JRT-SGE Doc. 13 Filed 02/14/26 Page 2 of 6

- 3 -
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 urge the Court to find that Petitioner, as an asylum seeker, is
“‘seeking admission’ through his pending asylum application[.]” 	(Resp. at 5, Feb. 13,
2026, Docket No. 10.)2 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 the 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,
2 Respondents appear to have submitted the same Response twice, both on February 13,
2026 (Docket Nos. 10 and 11).
CASE 0:26-cv-01286-JRT-SGE Doc. 13 Filed 02/14/26 Page 3 of 6

- 4 -
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).
To the extent Respondents argue that Alan C.E. 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, Alan C.E.’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.”).
CASE 0:26-cv-01286-JRT-SGE Doc. 13 Filed 02/14/26 Page 4 of 6

- 5 -
The Court will grant Alan C.E.’s petition for writ of habeas corpus and 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 Alan C.E.’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.
CASE 0:26-cv-01286-JRT-SGE Doc. 13 Filed 02/14/26 Page 5 of 6

- 6 -
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.
2. 	Petitioner’s Emergency Motion for Contempt and to Enforce the Court's Order to
Show Cause and Release Petitioner from Custody (Docket No. [4]) is DENIED as
moot.
DATED: February 14, 2026
at Minneapolis, Minnesota. 	JOHN R. TUNHEIM
Time: 4:40 p.m. 	United States District Judge
CASE 0:26-cv-01286-JRT-SGE Doc. 13 Filed 02/14/26 Page 6 of 6