Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Hector C .,
Petitioner,
v.
Todd Lyons, in his capacity as Acting
Director, Immigration and Customs
Enforcement; Kristi Noem, Secretary, U.S.
Department of Homeland Security; Pamela
Bondi, U.S. Attorney General; Daren
Margolin, Executive Office for Immigration
Review; David Easterwood, Field Office
Director of St. Paul Field Office for U.S.
Department of Homeland Security, United
States Immigration and Customs
Enforcement, Enforcement and Removal
Operations ,
Respondents.
No. 26-CV-1599 (SRN/SGE)
ORDER
Shana Lei Drengenberg, Anderson & Anderson Law Firm, 2900 Washington Ave. N.,
Minneapolis, MN 55411, for Petitioner
David W. Fuller, U.S. Attorney’s Office, 300 S. 4th St., Minneapolis, MN 55415, and
Denisha Devette Daughtry, DOJ-Civ., District Court Section, 450 5th St. NW., Ste. 5525,
Washington, DC 20530, for Respondents
SUSAN RICHARD NELSON, United States District Judge
Before the Court is the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”) [Doc. No.
1] filed by Petitioner Hector C. 	Petitioner seeks immediate release from detention, or a
prompt bond hearing in Immigration Court. 	Respondents oppose the Petition. (Resp’ts’
Opp’n [Doc. No. 5].)
CASE 0:26-cv-01599-SRN-SGE Doc. 8 Filed 02/27/26 Page 1 of 10

2
The Court has taken the Petition under advisement on the papers. For the reasons
set 	forth 	below, 	the 	Petition 	is 	granted 	and 	Respondents 	shall 	release 	Petitioner
immediately.
I. 	BACKGROUND
Hector C. is a resident of Minneapolis, Minnesota, and a citizen of Ecuador who has
lived in the United States since 2024. (Pet. at 7, 141.) He asserts that he faced threats of
violence and extortion in his home country. (Id. at 14.) Petitioner entered the United States
on July 29, 2024, without inspection. (Id.)
In September 2024, the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) issued a Notice
to Appear, classifying Hector C. as “an alien present in the country who has not been
admitted or paroled.” (Pet. Ex. A.) U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”)
placed him in removal proceedings pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1229a. 	(Pet. at 14–15.)
However, following an interview, an asylum officer found that Hector C. “demonstrated a
credible fear of persecution or torture.” (Pet. Ex. A.) Therefore, DHS vacated an expedited
removal order and released Hector C. in September 2024, subject to an Order of Release.
(Id.)
In July 2025, Hector C. applied for asylum and withholding of removal. (See Pet.
Ex. C.) 	He states that he has no criminal history in the United States other than minor
traffic violations. (Pet. at 14.)
1 The Petition does not contain consecutively numbered paragraphs or internal page
numbers. 	Therefore, the Court’s citations are to the ECF-stamped page numbers that
appear across the top of each page.
CASE 0:26-cv-01599-SRN-SGE Doc. 8 Filed 02/27/26 Page 2 of 10

3
On February 21, 2026, local sheriff’s deputies stopped and arrested Petitioner near
Hill City, Minnesota, for driving without a license. (Id.) He was transferred to the custody
of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) that day. (Id.) He alleges that his
arrest was without a warrant. (Id.)
Earlier in February 2026, in a separate immigration-related lawsuit in this District,
Judge Nancy E. Brasel granted a motion for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”)
concerning the policies and practices employed by ICE after it arrests and initially detains
noncitizens. The Advocates for Human Rights v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security,
No. 26-cv-749 (NEB/DLM) (D. Minn. Feb. 12, 2026 [Doc. No. 95].) As relevant here, in
her February 12, 2026 TRO, Judge Brasel ordered that DHS/ICE/USCIS “shall not
transfer a Detainee out of Minnesota during the first 72 hours of their detention.” (Id.
at 39) (emphasis in original). Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b), the TRO
was in effect for 14 days, through February 26, 2026. (Id. at 40.)
Here, after ICE agents detained Petitioner on February 21, they transferred him to a
detention facility in Wisconsin on February 22, in violation of the 72-hour prohibition
against out-of-state transfers issued in The Advocates for Human Rights. (Pet. at 15.)
Petitioner filed the instant Petition on February 23, asserting that he is entitled to
immediate release, or, alternatively, a bond hearing. (Id. at 2–3.)
In the Court’s February 23, 2026 Order to Show Cause, the Court enjoined
Respondents from moving Petitioner out of Minnesota until further order of the court, and,
to the extent he was released, likewise required Petitioner to remain in Minnesota while his
Petition is pending. (OSC [Doc. No. 3] ¶¶ 4–5.) The Court also ordered Respondents to
CASE 0:26-cv-01599-SRN-SGE Doc. 8 Filed 02/27/26 Page 3 of 10

4
show cause for the “true cause and proper duration of Petitioner’s confinement,” supported
by “[s]uch affidavits and exhibits as are needed to establish the lawfulness . . . of
Petitioner’s detention,” and further directed Respondents to address “[w]hether the absence
of a warrant preceding Petitioner’s arrest necessitates Petitioner’s immediate release.” (Id.
¶¶ 1, 2(a), (e).) 	Additionally, the Court required Respondents to distinguish the instant
Petition from the Court’s prior rulings in Maldonado v. Olson, 795 F. Supp. 3d 1134 (D.
Minn. 2025), and E.M. v. Noem, No. 25-cv-3975 (SRN/DTS), 2025 WL 3157839 (D. Minn.
Nov. 12, 2025). (Id. ¶ 2(d).)
In their February 25, 2026 response, Respondents request dismissal or transfer of
venue. They contend that Petitioner is currently detained in Superior, Wisconsin, and this
Court lacks personal jurisdiction over him. Respondents represent that prior to when the
Court enjoined Petitioner’s out-of-state transfer, ICE had already moved Petitioner to
Wisconsin “in the ordinary course of detention operations.” (Resp’ts’ Opp’n [Doc. No. 5]
at 2.) However, Respondents assert that “[u]pon receiving notice of the Court’s order, ICE
promptly notified the appropriate officials of the directive that Petitioner be returned to
Minnesota and is taking steps to comply.” 	(Id.) 	Further, they “do not concede that the
prior transfer violated any directive of the Court.” (Id.)
In the alternative to dismissal or transfer of venue, Respondents argue that if this
Court finds it has jurisdiction, Petitioner is subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1225(b)(2) and is therefore not entitled to release. (Id. at 6.) They further assert that on
February 21, 2026, 	ICE issued a Warrant for Arrest (Form I-200) and served Petitioner
with a Record of Deportable/Inadmissible Alien (Form I-213). (Id. at 2.)
CASE 0:26-cv-01599-SRN-SGE Doc. 8 Filed 02/27/26 Page 4 of 10

5
Respondents’ position regarding the applicability of § 1225(b)(2) is consistent with
new interim guidance from DHS/ICE, and a recent decision from the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“BIA”) finding that all persons who enter the United States without inspection,
including those who have been residing here for some time, are “applicants for admission”
under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(a), subject to mandatory detention, rather than discretionary
detention under § 1226(a). Maldonado, 795 F. Supp. 3d at 1150 (noting interim guidance);
Matter of Yajure Hurtado, 29 I. & N. Dec. 216 (BIA 2025). Respondents invoke their prior
positions, as set forth in Avila v. Bondi, No. 25-3248 (8th Cir. Nov. 10, 2025), currently
pending before the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. (Resp’ts’ Opp’n at 6.)
In his Reply, Petitioner argues that jurisdiction is proper because Respondents’
initial transfer of him to Wisconsin violated a standing TRO, and Respondents have now
moved him back to Minnesota. (Pet’r’s Reply at 3–4; Pet’r’s Reply Ex. A.) In support of
his position, Petitioner submits an exhibit from the ICE Detainee Locator, showing that he
is currently detained at the Sherburne County Jail in Elk River, Minnesota. (Id.)
II. 	DISCUSSION
A. Jurisdiction
First, the Court denies as moot Respondents’ request to dismiss for lack of
jurisdiction or to transfer venue to the Western District of Wisconsin. 	Granted, in his
Petition, Hector C. alleged that he was detained in Wisconsin, (Pet. at 15), but after
violating the standing TRO, Respondents have returned him to Minnesota. (Pet’r’s Reply
Ex. A.) 	By returning Petitioner to Minnesota, ICE addressed their violation, and any
jurisdictional issue has been rendered moot. 	While Petitioner could formally amend the
CASE 0:26-cv-01599-SRN-SGE Doc. 8 Filed 02/27/26 Page 5 of 10

6
Petition 	to 	reflect 	the 	facts 	concerning 	his 	current 	physical 	location, 	under 	these
circumstances, the Court will not delay reaching the merits simply for the sake of
procedure. 	Importantly, 	in 	addition 	to 	challenging 	jurisdiction, 	Respondents 	also
addressed the Petition on the merits. (See Resp’ts’ Opp’n at 6–7.) In the interest of judicial
economy, the Court is satisfied that it has jurisdiction, and proceeds to consider the merits
of the Petition. 	See Edita M.S.C. v. Noem, No. 26-cv-650, 2026 WL 252545, at *1 (D.
Minn. Jan. 30, 2026) (denying motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction because petitioner
was transferred back to Minnesota and requiring the refiling of the petition would have
been a waste of judicial resources).
B. Section 1226 Applies
While the parties dispute whether 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) or § 1226(a) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) applies to a noncitizen who is already residing
in the United States, there is no dispute that Petitioner was arrested while already residing
in the United States.
This Court has previously found, along with the vast majority of district courts
throughout the country, that the applicable detention scheme for noncitizens already
residing in the country is under § 1226(a), absent any exceptions under § 1226(c).
Maldonado, 795 F. Supp. 3d at 1150–52, E.M., 2025 WL 3157839, at *4–8; see also
Demirel v. Fed. Detention Ctr., No. 25-5488, 2025 WL 3218243, at *4 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 18,
2025) (collecting cases). 	By contrast, § 1225(b)(2) applies to noncitizens at or near the
border. 	Alvarez Ortiz v. Freden, --- F. Supp. 3d ---, No. 25-CV-960-LJV, 2025 WL
3085032, at *10 (W.D.N.Y. Nov. 4. 2025). 	To date, two federal courts of appeals have
CASE 0:26-cv-01599-SRN-SGE Doc. 8 Filed 02/27/26 Page 6 of 10

7
ruled on this issue, reaching opposite conclusions. 	Castañon-Nava v. U.S. Dep’t of
Homeland Sec., 161 F.4th 1048, 1062 (7th Cir. 2025) (concluding that respondent was not
likely to prevail on the merits that petitioner was subject to mandatory detention under §
1225(b)(2)); Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, --- F.4th ---, Nos. 25-20496, 25-40701, 2026
WL 323330, at *1 (5th Cir. Feb. 6, 2026) (finding petitioner was subject to mandatory
detention under § 1225(b)(2)). Respondents do not assert that any of the exceptions under
§ 1226(c) apply. The Court remains unpersuaded by Respondents’ statutory interpretation
of §§ 1225(b)(2)(A), but notes that Respondents’ arguments are preserved for appeal.
C. Appropriate Remedy
Having determined that § 1225(b) is inapplicable to Petitioner, who otherwise falls
under § 1226(a), the Court turns to the appropriate remedy. Section 1226(a) provides that
“[o]n a warrant issued by the Attorney General, an alien may be arrested and detained
pending a decision on whether the alien is to be removed from the United States.” 8 U.S.C.
§ 1226(a) (emphasis added). The statute requires the issuance of a warrant as a precursor
to detention under § 1226(a). Ahmed M. v. Bondi, No. 25-cv-4711 (ECT/SGE), 2026 WL
25627, at *3 (D. Minn. Jan. 5, 2026) (citing Chogllo Chafla v. Scott, 804 F. Supp. 3d 247
(D. Me. 2025), appeal filed (Nov. 7, 2025); J.A.C.P. v. Wofford, No. 1:25-cv-01354-KES-
SKO (HC), 2025 WL 3013328, at *8 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 27, 2025)). “[I]t follows that absent
a warrant a noncitizen may not be arrested and detained under section 1226(a).” Chogllo
Chafla, 804 F. Supp. 3d at 264 (emphasis in original).
Petitioner 	alleges 	he 	was 	arrested 	and 	detained 	without 	a 	warrant 	and 	that
Respondents have failed to produce a warrant. 	(Pet. at 2, 13–14.) 	The Court’s Order to
CASE 0:26-cv-01599-SRN-SGE Doc. 8 Filed 02/27/26 Page 7 of 10

8
Show Cause required Respondents to address “[w]hether the absence of a warrant
preceding Petitioner’s arrest necessitates Petitioner’s immediate release” and to support
their position with “[s]uch affidavits and exhibits as are needed to establish the lawfulness
. . . of Petitioner’s detention,” (OSC ¶ 2(a), (e).) While Respondents refer to an ICE Form
I-200 warrant (Resp’ts’ Opp’n at 2), they have not produced it or any other supporting
documentation. 	Even in instances in which a Form I-200 warrant has been produced by
respondents, the form alone has been found to be insufficient evidence of a valid warrant
under § 1226(a). See, e.g., Jouquin C.S. v. Bondi, No. 26-cv-1438 (DWF/DJF), 2026 WL
483256, at *2–3 (D. Minn. Feb. 20, 2026) (finding the production of Form I-200 without
any additional information—including about the officer who signed the warrant or when
the warrant was signed—precluded Court from determining the validity of the warrant);
Enyer O.L. v. Bondi, No. 26-cv-1078 (MJD/SGE), at 7 (D. Minn. Feb. 15, 2026) [Doc. No.
9] (“Aside from the Form I-200, there were no accompanying exhibits, supporting
documents, or attached affidavits/declarations that establish when the warrant was created,
what evidence formed the basis for its issuance, or how and when it was served.”). Here,
Respondents have failed to produce a warrant and any supporting documentation. 	The
Court is therefore unable to evaluate the validity of any such warrant.
As other judges in this District have found, the appropriate remedy for detention
that lacks a proper statutory basis under § 1226(a) is release. Ahmed M., 2026 WL 25627,
at *3 (finding release the appropriate remedy where Respondents did not produce a
warrant); Juan S.R. v. Bondi, No. 26-cv-0005 (PJS/LIB) (D. Minn. Jan. 12, 2026) [Doc.
No. 8 at 3–4] (following the reasoning of Ahmed M. and ordering immediate release where
CASE 0:26-cv-01599-SRN-SGE Doc. 8 Filed 02/27/26 Page 8 of 10

9
Respondents failed to present evidence of a warrant); Vedat C. v. Bondi, No. 25-cv-4642
(JWB/DTS) (D. Minn. Dec. 19, 2025) [Doc. No. 9 at 6] (“[A] bond hearing presupposes
lawful detention authority under § 1226. 	Where that authority has not been invoked or
established, ordering a bond hearing would treat the absence of statutory power as a mere
procedural irregularity rather than a substantive defect.”). “Habeas relief . . . addresses the
lawfulness of custody itself,” and “[f]or detention that lacks a lawful predicate, release is
an available and appropriate remedy.” 	Id. Accordingly, Respondents shall release
Petitioner from custody, subject only to the conditions of his September 2024 Order of
Release under 8 C.F.R. § 208.30 for being found to have a credible fear of persecution in
his home country.
Accordingly, the Court grants Petitioner’s request for release, as set forth below.
III. 	ORDER
Based on the submissions and the entire file and proceedings herein, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED that
1. 	Petitioner Hector C.’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus [Doc. No. 1] is
GRANTED, as follows:
2. 	Respondents shall release Petitioner from custody immediately, but no later than
within 48 hours.
3. 	Prior to Petitioner’s release, Respondents must first notify Petitioner’s legal
counsel, 	Shana 	Lei 	Drengenberg 	(612-259-8945, 	shana@andersonlf.com),
within two hours of his impending release, and include the location of his release
and 	approximate 	release 	time, 	so 	that 	Petitioner’s 	counsel 	may 	make
transportation 	arrangements 	and 	Petitioner’s 	counsel 	may 	notify 	family
members.
CASE 0:26-cv-01599-SRN-SGE Doc. 8 Filed 02/27/26 Page 9 of 10

10
4. 	Upon release, Respondents shall return to Petitioner all of his identifying
documents, immigration documents, paperwork of any kind, his cell phone, and
any other personal belongings, including clothing and jewelry.
5. 	Respondents may not administratively recharacterize the release granted by this
Order as grounds to impose additional conditions and may only impose the
conditions of Hector C.’s September 2024 Order of Release under 8 C.F.R. §
208.30 for being found to have a credible fear of persecution in his home
country.
6. 	Respondents shall confirm Petitioner’s release within 48 hours from the date of
this Order by filing a document on CM/ECF that includes a copy of conditions
of release.
7. 	Respondents may not re-detain Petitioner under a statutory theory this Court has
rejected in this proceeding absent materially changed circumstances.
Dated: February 27, 2026 	s/Susan Richard Nelson
SUSAN RICHARD NELSON
United States District Judge
CASE 0:26-cv-01599-SRN-SGE Doc. 8 Filed 02/27/26 Page 10 of 10