Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Wilfrido R.M.C.,
Petitioner,
v.
Pamela Bondi, Attorney General, United
States Department of Justice; Kristi
Noem, Secretary, U.S. Department of
Homeland Security; and Todd M. Lyons,
Acting Director of Immigration and
Customs Enforcement,
Respondents.
Civil No. 26-1601 (DWF/DTS)
MEMORANDUM
OPINION AND ORDER
INTRODUCTION
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Wilfrido R.M.C.’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 Texas. (Doc. No. 4.) Petitioner then filed a motion for contempt.
(Doc. No. 5.) For the reasons set forth below, the Court denies the motion to transfer,
grants the Petition, orders Respondents to release Petitioner immediately, and reserves
ruling on the motion for contempt.
BACKGROUND
Petitioner is a citizen of Ecuador and a resident of Minneapolis, Minnesota. (Doc.
No. 1 ¶¶ 2, 30-31.) He has lived in the United States since he entered on April 7, 2024.
CASE 0:26-cv-01601-DWF-DTS Doc. 9 Filed 02/27/26 Page 1 of 8

2
(Id. ¶¶ 2, 30) He was apprehended upon entry and subsequently released on his own
recognizance. (Id.) He has attended all immigration court dates. (Id. ¶ 2.)
On January 6, 2026, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) arrested
Petitioner in Minneapolis while he stopped for gasoline on his way home from work. (Id.
¶¶ 4, 14, 26.) Two masked men wearing tactical vests surrounded Petitioner with their
firearms drawn. (Id. ¶ 4.) These men were ICE agents, but that was unclear to Petitioner
because they did not identify themselves. (See id.) The agents did not produce a warrant
for the arrest nor give any reason for detention. (Id. ¶¶ 4, 32.) Petitioner attempted to
flee from the unidentified armed men, so they shot him with rubber bullets, placed him in
their vehicle, and drove away. (Id. ¶ 4.)
He was first taken to the Whipple Federal Building at Fort Snelling in Minnesota.
(Id. ¶ 5.) He was then transferred to the ERO El Paso Camp East Montana Facility in El
Paso, Texas, the following day. (Id.; Doc. No. 4 at 1.) At the time of filing, ICE’s online
detainee locator showed that he was still in El Paso. (Doc. No. 1 ¶ 5.) However, it
appears Petitioner was moved after filing, this time to Louisiana. 1 (See Doc. No. 6 at 1;
Doc. No. 8 at 1 & n.1.) Currently, the ICE detainee locator lists only “Call ICE For
Details.” Online Detainee Locator System, U.S. Immigr. & Customs Enf’t,
https://locator.ice.gov/odls/#/search (last visited Feb. 27, 2026).
1 	After seven weeks in El Paso, Respondents moved Petitioner mere hours before he
was scheduled to meet with his attorney. (Doc. No. 8 at 1-2.)
CASE 0:26-cv-01601-DWF-DTS Doc. 9 Filed 02/27/26 Page 2 of 8

3
Petitioner filed the Petition on February 23, 2026. (Doc. No. 1 at 22.) 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, violates the Immigration and Nationality
Act, and constitutes unlawful arrest. (Id. ¶¶ 35-66.) Petitioner also asserts that he is a
member of the Bond Eligible Class certified in Maldonado Bautista v. Santacruz,
No. 25-cv-1873, 2025 WL 3288403 (C.D. Cal. (Nov. 25, 2025), amended by 2025 WL
3713987 (Dec. 18, 2025).2 (Id. ¶¶ 10-12.) 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 20-21.) On February 24, 2026, the Court
ordered Respondents to answer the Petition on or before February 26, 2026 at 12:00 p.m.
CT, and enjoined Respondents from moving Petitioner from this District pending further
order, or if Petitioner was already moved from Minnesota, ordered that he be
immediately returned to the state. 3 (Doc. No. 3.) Respondents timely filed the response.
(Doc. No. 4.)
2 	Because the Court concludes that § 1225(b) does not apply to Petitioner, and
therefore Petitioner is entitled to relief regardless of whether he is a member of the class,
the Court need not address the effect of Maldonado Bautista.
3 	Petitioner moves for contempt because Respondents failed to return Petitioner to
Minnesota and, indeed, moved him elsewhere. (Doc. No. 5.) The Court is concerned
that Petitioner was moved to Louisiana instead of to Minnesota. However, the Court will
not pursue contempt proceedings at this time, so long as Petitioner is immediately
returned to Minnesota and released, as ordered below. The Court reserves ruling on the
motion until it is confirmed that Petitioner was timely released in Minnesota.
CASE 0:26-cv-01601-DWF-DTS Doc. 9 Filed 02/27/26 Page 3 of 8

4
DISCUSSION
I. 	Motion to Dismiss or Transfer
As a threshold matter, Respondents challenge the Court’s jurisdiction over this
case. (Doc. No. 4 at 2-5.) They ask the Court to either dismiss the Petition or transfer the
matter to the Western District of Texas. (Id. at 1, 6.) Generally, jurisdiction over a
habeas petition lies only in the district of confinement. Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S.
426, 443 (2004). However, “[w]hen . . . 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.” Id. at 450 n.18. Petitioner’s current location is unknown to counsel,
and the ICE detainee locator only provides “Call ICE For Details.” Therefore, this
exception applies. The Court exercises jurisdiction because the Petition was filed here.
The motion to dismiss or 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 argue that Petitioner is subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1225(b)(2) and point the Court to their arguments in a pending Eighth Circuit case:
CASE 0:26-cv-01601-DWF-DTS Doc. 9 Filed 02/27/26 Page 4 of 8

5
Avila v. Bondi, No. 25-3248. (Doc. No. 4 at 5-6.) 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 he has been in the United
States for nearly two 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).
Further, Respondents fail to address the impact of his prior release under § 1226.
Respondents do not show that Petitioner’s order for release on recognizance was revoked
or that there was any change in circumstances that would warrant its revocation.
Sections 1225 and 1226 are meant to address different populations, they are not
interchangeable. See Adriana M.Y.M. v. Easterwood, No. 26-cv-213, 2026 WL 184721,
at *4 (D. Minn. Jan. 24, 2026) (citing Jennings, 583 U.S. at 285-90).
CASE 0:26-cv-01601-DWF-DTS Doc. 9 Filed 02/27/26 Page 5 of 8

6
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. 4). 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.
3. 	Respondents are ORDERED to release Petitioner from custody
immediately, subject only to the conditions of his prior Order of Release on
Recognizance.
CASE 0:26-cv-01601-DWF-DTS Doc. 9 Filed 02/27/26 Page 6 of 8

7
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 new conditions on release, including but not limited to
requiring Petitioner to sign a new “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.
6. 	Respondents shall provide reasonable advance notice to counsel to arrange
for a safe release of Petitioner. Petitioner’s counsel is Joseph Nelson and can be reached
at 612-333-8844.
7. 	Respondents are ENJOINED from re-detaining Petitioner under this same
statutory theory, absent materially changed circumstances.
8. 	Respondents’ motion to dismiss or transfer (Doc. No. [4]) is DENIED.
9. 	The Court RESERVES RULING on Petitioner’s motion for contempt
(Doc. No. [5]).
CASE 0:26-cv-01601-DWF-DTS Doc. 9 Filed 02/27/26 Page 7 of 8

8
10. 	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 27, 2026 	s/Donovan W. Frank
DONOVAN W. FRANK
United States District Judge
CASE 0:26-cv-01601-DWF-DTS Doc. 9 Filed 02/27/26 Page 8 of 8