Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Nicolethe N.M.S.,
Petitioner,
v.
Pamela Bondi, Attorney General; Kristi
Noem, Secretary, U.S. Department of
Homeland Security; Todd M. Lyons,
Acting Director of Immigration and
Customs Enforcement; and David
Easterwood, Acting Director, St. Paul
Field Office Immigration and Customs
Enforcement,
Respondents.
Civil No. 26-1406 (DWF/LIB)
MEMORANDUM
OPINION AND ORDER
INTRODUCTION
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Nicolethe N.M.S.’s petition for a writ
of habeas corpus (the “Petition”). (Doc. No. 1.) Respondents filed a form response
asserting authority to detain Petitioner under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). (Doc. No. 5.) For
the reasons set forth below, the Court grants the Petition and orders Respondents to
release Petitioner immediately.
BACKGROUND
Petitioner is a citizen of Colombia and a resident of Burnsville, Minnesota. (Doc.
No. 1 ¶¶ 7, 12.) She has lived in the United States since January 2023. (Id. ¶ 12.) She
initially surrendered to U.S. Customs and Border Patrol (“CBP”) upon entering the
country through the CBP One application process. (Id. ¶ 13.) Upon release, Petitioner
CASE 0:26-cv-01406-DWF-LIB Doc. 6 Filed 02/18/26 Page 1 of 6

2
entered the Intensive Supervision Appearance Program (“ISAP”). (See id.) She has
complied with all requirements of her release, including mandatory appointments every
fifteen days. (Id.) Petitioner also filed for asylum in August 2024, and her case is still
pending. (Id.) She has no criminal record. (Id.)
On January 23, 2026, during one of her mandatory ISAP appointments, Petitioner
was detained. (Id. ¶¶ 13, 15.) She was taken to a detention center in New Mexico. 1 (Id.
¶¶ 14-15.) While in detention, she has experienced continuous vaginal bleeding and
forced to eat expired food. (Id. ¶ 14.) She was also unable to access an attorney for more
than two weeks. (Id. ¶ 15.)
Petitioner filed the Petition on February 12, 2026. (Id. at 15.) Petitioner asserts
that her detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) is unlawful because it violates the Due
Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, the Immigration and Nationality Act, and the
Administrative Procedure Act. (Id. ¶¶ 27-43.) Petitioner requests, among other things,
release from detention or an order requiring Respondents to provide her with a bond
hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). (Id. at 14.) On February 13, 2026, the Court ordered
Respondents to answer the Petition on or before February 16, 2026, at 12:00 p.m. CT.
(Doc. No. 3.) Respondents timely filed a form response. (Doc. No. 5.)
1 	Respondents do not challenge the Court’s jurisdiction to hear this Petition. (See
Doc. No. 5.) Therefore, the issue is waived. See Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426,
451-52 (2004) (Kennedy, J., concurring) (explaining that “the question of the proper
location for a habeas petition is best understood as a question of personal jurisdiction or
venue” and that objections to the filing location can be waived); Mathena v. United
States, 577 F.3d 943, 946 n.3 (8th Cir. 2009) (discussing waiver of challenges to the
filing location of a habeas petition).
CASE 0:26-cv-01406-DWF-LIB Doc. 6 Filed 02/18/26 Page 2 of 6

3
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), and pointing the Court to their
arguments in a pending Eighth Circuit case: Avila v. Bondi, No. 25-3248. (Doc. No. 5.)
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 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 she has been in the United
States for three years and has a pending asylum application. See Jennings v. Rodriguez,
CASE 0:26-cv-01406-DWF-LIB Doc. 6 Filed 02/18/26 Page 3 of 6

4
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 detention. 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
detention and provide documents of such (see Doc. No. 3), Respondents did not do so,
(see Doc. No. 5). 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
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.
CASE 0:26-cv-01406-DWF-LIB Doc. 6 Filed 02/18/26 Page 4 of 6

5
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 her 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 or use of a tracking application; and
e. 	With all clothing and outerwear she 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.
CASE 0:26-cv-01406-DWF-LIB Doc. 6 Filed 02/18/26 Page 5 of 6

6
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.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: February 18, 2026 	s/Donovan W. Frank
DONOVAN W. FRANK
United States District Judge
CASE 0:26-cv-01406-DWF-LIB Doc. 6 Filed 02/18/26 Page 6 of 6