Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Angel G.S.P.,
Petitioner,
v.
Pam 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. 26-1449 (DWF/JFD)
MEMORANDUM
OPINION AND ORDER
INTRODUCTION
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Angel G.S.P.’s petition for a writ of
habeas corpus (the “Petition”). (Doc. No. 1.) Respondents filed a response asserting
authority to detain Petitioner under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) and requesting transfer to the
Western District of Wisconsin. (Doc. No. 5.) For the reasons set forth below, the Court
denies the motion to transfer, grants the Petition, and orders Respondents to release
Petitioner immediately.
BACKGROUND
Petitioner is a citizen of Ecuador and a resident of Baldwin, Wisconsin. (Doc.
No. 1 ¶¶ 7, 12.) He has lived in the United States since May 11, 2021. (Id. ¶ 12.) He has
CASE 0:26-cv-01449-DWF-JFD Doc. 7 Filed 02/18/26 Page 1 of 7

2
two children: a ten-year-old son and a one-month-old daughter. (Id. ¶ 15.) He has no
final order of removal. (Id. ¶ 13.)
On February 15, 2026, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”)
arrested Petitioner. (Id. ¶ 16.) Masked ICE agents wearing vests that said “Police/ICE”
handcuffed Petitioner, placed him in an unmarked car, and left. (Id.) The agents did not
produce a warrant for the arrest. (Id.) He was first taken to the Whipple Federal
Building at Fort Snelling in Minnesota. (Id. ¶¶ 7, 20.) Before filing, Petitioner’s counsel
attempted to locate Petitioner, but the ICE locator did not yield any results. (Id. ¶ 14.)
The system now shows that Petitioner is at Kandiyohi County Jail in Minnesota. Online
Detainee Locator System, U.S. Immigr. & Customs Enf’t,
https://locator.ice.gov/odls/#/search (last visited Feb. 18, 2026). Petitioner’s arrest was
part of “Operation Metro Surge,” an ongoing immigration-law enforcement effort in
Hennepin and Ramsey Counties that has led to an unprecedented increase in federal law
enforcement presence in Minnesota. (Doc. No. 1 ¶¶ 17-18; see also Tincher v. Noem,
No. 25-cv-4669, 2026 WL 125375, at *1, 31 (D. Minn. Jan. 16, 2026), appeal docketed,
No. 26-1105 (Jan. 20, 2026).)
Petitioner filed the Petition on February 15, 2026. (Doc. No. 1 at 18.) Petitioner
asserts that his 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. ¶¶ 31-47.) Petitioner requests, among other
things, release from detention or an order requiring Respondents to provide him with a
bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). (Id. at 18.) Also on February 15, 2026, the
CASE 0:26-cv-01449-DWF-JFD Doc. 7 Filed 02/18/26 Page 2 of 7

3
Court ordered Respondents to answer the Petition on or before February 19, 2026, at
12:00 p.m. CT, and enjoined Respondents from moving Petitioner from this District
pending further order. (Doc. No. 3.) Respondents timely filed a form response. (Doc.
No. 5.)
DISCUSSION
I. 	Motion to Transfer
As a threshold matter, Respondents challenge the Court’s jurisdiction over this
case. (Doc. No. 5 at 1-2.) Generally, jurisdiction over a habeas petition lies only in the
district of confinement. Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 443 (2004). Petitioner is
detained in Minnesota. Further, the Padilla decision noted an exception to the district-of-
confinement rule for habeas jurisdiction when the person’s location is unknown. Id.
at 450 n.18 (“When . . . a prisoner is held in an undisclosed location by an unknown
custodian, it is impossible to apply the immediate custodian and district of confinement
rules.”). On the date of filing, Petitioner’s counsel attempted to locate him, but the
system did not show results, so the exception applies. For both of these reasons, the
Court has jurisdiction.
Respondents ask the Court to transfer this matter to the Western District of
Wisconsin, arguing that jurisdiction is proper in the district of arrest and Petitioner’s
residence because “the decision to arrest and detain Petitioner was directed to personnel
within” Wisconsin and therefore “witnesses and information about the manner of his
arrest would also be found in” Wisconsin. (Doc. No. 5 at 1-2 (citation modified) (quoting
Jose A. v. Noem, No. 26-cv-480, 2026 WL 172524, at *2 (D. Minn. Jan. 22, 2026)).)
CASE 0:26-cv-01449-DWF-JFD Doc. 7 Filed 02/18/26 Page 3 of 7

4
While there may be circumstances in which it is proper to transfer a habeas petition to the
district of arrest, this is not one of those cases. Petitioner’s arrest was part of Operation
Metro Surge, which is based in Minnesota, so ICE personnel responsible for his arrest are
in Minnesota. Further, Baldwin, Wisconsin, is right across the border from the Twin
Cities, so it would not be inconvenient for witnesses to come here. The motion to
transfer is denied.
II. 	Merits of the Petition
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 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
CASE 0:26-cv-01449-DWF-JFD Doc. 7 Filed 02/18/26 Page 4 of 7

5
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 he has been in the United
States for nearly five years. See Jennings v. Rodriguez, 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)).
CASE 0:26-cv-01449-DWF-JFD Doc. 7 Filed 02/18/26 Page 5 of 7

6
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.
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 his 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 he was wearing at the time of
detention, or other proper winter attire.
CASE 0:26-cv-01449-DWF-JFD Doc. 7 Filed 02/18/26 Page 6 of 7

7
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.
8. 	Respondents’ motion to transfer (Doc. No. [5]) is DENIED.
9. 	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-01449-DWF-JFD Doc. 7 Filed 02/18/26 Page 7 of 7