Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Daniel P. Suitor, DANIEL P. SUITOR, PLLC, 331 Second Avenue South, Suite
400-3099, Minneapolis, MN 55401, for Petitioner.
Carl Berry and David W. Fuller, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, 300
South Fourth Street, Suite 600, Minneapolis, MN 55415, for Respondents.
Petitioner Luis D. was arrested and detained by federal immigration enforcement
agents in Minnesota on April 7, 2026. He petitions for a writ of habeas corpus, arguing
that he is being detained unlawfully. Because the Court concludes that his detention is
LUIS D.,
Petitioner,
v.
MARKWAYNE 	MULLIN, 	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. 26-2188 (JRT/DJF)
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
GRANTING PETITION FOR WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS
CASE 0:26-cv-02188-JRT-DJF Doc. 8 Filed 04/30/26 Page 1 of 7

-2-
unlawful, the Court will grant the petition and order that Petitioner be released from
custody.
BACKGROUND
Luis D. is a Minnesota resident and native of Cuba. (Pet. Writ of Habeas Corpus
(“Pet.”) ¶ 16, Apr. 8, 2026, Docket No. 1.) He has lived in the United States since 2012,
when he arrived here as a refugee. 	(Id. ¶ 24.) 	He subsequently obtained lawful
permanent resident status. (Id.) Following several criminal convictions, he was ordered
removed in 2016. (Id. ¶ 25.) Petitioner was in detention for approximately 90 days before
being released on an order of supervision. (Id. ¶ 26.)
On April 8, 2026, Petitioner “was detained by ICE when they took custody of him
from local authorities at the Kandiyohi County Jail.” (Id. ¶ 28.) Petitioner states that “ICE
has not formally notified [Petitioner] that it was revoking his order of supervision, nor has
ICE identified any change in circumstance to justify revocation of his order of supervision.”
(Id. ¶ 29.) Respondents state that ICE revoked Petitioner’s supervised release on April 7,
2026, by “verbally explain[ing] to [Petitioner] that he had violated the terms of his
[supervised release] and he would have the opportunity to have an interview regarding
the violations and revocation of [supervised release].” (Decl. of James L. Van Der Vaart
(“Van Der Vaart Decl.”) ¶ 19, Apr. 14, 2026, Docket No. 6.). Then “[o]n April 11, 2026,
[Petitioner] was served [a] written Notice of Revocation of Release.” (Id. ¶ 20.)
CASE 0:26-cv-02188-JRT-DJF Doc. 8 Filed 04/30/26 Page 2 of 7

-3-
On April 8, 2026, Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging that
his detention violated 8 U.S.C. § 1231, the Fourth and Fifth Amendments of the United
States Constitution, and ICE’s own regulations. (Pet. ¶¶ 47–66.)
DISCUSSION
The parties agree that 8 U.S.C. § 1231 governs Petitioner’s detention because
Petitioner is subject to a final order for removal. The parties’ central dispute is whether
ICE followed its own regulations in revoking Petitioner’s supervised release, arresting, and
detaining him.1
Where a noncitizen is detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a), the noncitizen’s detention
is governed by its implementing regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 241. Under § 241.13, supervised
release may be revoked in two circumstances: (1) if the individual violates release
conditions, or (2) “if, on account of changed circumstances, [ICE] determines that there is
a significant likelihood that the [individual] may be removed in the reasonably foreseeable
future.” 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(i)(1)–(2). 	In either case—violation of supervised release or
changed circumstances—the regulations require ICE to notify the noncitizen “of the
reasons for revocation of his or her release” and to “conduct an initial informal interview
promptly after [the noncitizen’s] return to [ICE] custody to afford the [noncitizen] an
1 Respondents also assert that the Court lacks jurisdiction to hear this petition, but the
Court disagrees, as it has in other cases. See, e.g., Bounkieng S. v. Noem, Civ. No. 26-1830, 2026
WL 776926 (D. Minn. Mar. 18, 2026).
CASE 0:26-cv-02188-JRT-DJF Doc. 8 Filed 04/30/26 Page 3 of 7

-4-
opportunity to respond to the reasons for revocation stated in the notification.” 8 C.F.R.
§ 241.13(i)(3).
It 	is 	well-established 	that 	“[a]gencies 	must 	follow 	their 	own 	regulations.”
Saengnakhone S. v. Noem, Civ. No. 25-4775, 2026 WL 34132, at *3 (D. Minn. Jan. 6, 2026)
(citing United States ex rel. Accardi v. Shaughnessy, 347 U.S. 260, 265–68 (1954)). Here,
there is no dispute that Petitioner’s re-detention is governed by § 241.13, and that ICE is
bound to follow that regulation. ICE’s purported basis for detaining Petitioner is that he
violated the terms of his supervised release. (See Van Der Vaart Decl. ¶ 20, Ex. B. (with
the boxes checked stating “Your release has been revoked . . . for the following reason(s)”
and “You violated a condition of your release”). 	Respondents argue that ICE complied
with § 241.13 in this case when it detained Petitioner because it verbally informed him
that his order of supervised release had been revoked, provided him with an informal
interview, and then served him with his Notice of Revocation of Release explaining the
reasons for his detention over three days later.
Petitioner bears the burden of showing that his detention is unlawful, see Aditya
W.H. v. Trump, 782 F. Supp. 3d 691, 703 (D. Minn. 2025). 	However, in this case,
Respondents bear the burden under § 241.13 of showing that “changed circumstances”
justified the revocation of release and Petitioner’s detention. See Yee S. v. Bondi, 806 F.
Supp. 3d 894, 900 (D. Minn. 2025); see also Holger P.A.P. v. Noem, Civ. No. 26-571, 2026
WL 710663, at *2 (D. Minn. Mar. 13, 2026).
CASE 0:26-cv-02188-JRT-DJF Doc. 8 Filed 04/30/26 Page 4 of 7

-5-
The Court concludes, on the record before it, that Respondents failed to follow
their own procedures regarding the revocation of release, and that Petitioner’s detention
is therefore unlawful. Section 241.13(i)(3) states that “[u]pon revocation, the [noncitizen]
will be notified of the reasons for revocation of his or her release.” Respondents did not
provide such notice to Petitioner until after he was arrested, and thus failed to follow
§ 241.13. 	(See Van Der Vaart Decl. ¶ 20, Ex. B (noting that the revocation notice was
served on April 11, 2026, four days after Petitioner’s arrest).) Moreover, regarding the
required informal interview under § 241.13(i)(3), the Notice of Revocation of Release,
which is dated April 11, 2026, states that Petitioner “will be afforded an informal
interview” on April 9, 2026. (Id.) Accordingly, any informal interview that was provided
to Petitioner could not have complied with ICE’s regulations, because Petitioner was not
formally provided with the purported reasons for the revocation of his supervised release
prior to the informal interview.
In sum, the record demonstrates that ICE failed to follow its own procedures in
revoking Petitioner’s supervised release. As it has in other similar cases, the Court will
grant the petition for writ of habeas corpus and order that Petitioner be released from
custody. 	See, e.g., Bounkieng S. v. Noem, Civ. No. 26-1830, 2026 WL 776926 at *2 (D.
Minn. Mar. 18, 2026).
ORDER
Based on the foregoing, and all the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED that:
CASE 0:26-cv-02188-JRT-DJF Doc. 8 Filed 04/30/26 Page 5 of 7

-6-
1. 	Petitioner Luis D.’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Docket No. [1]) is GRANTED,
as follows:
a. 	Petitioner shall be released from custody subject to the conditions, if any,
in such prior order of supervision.
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. 	Respondents are ORDERED to coordinate with Petitioner’s counsel to
ensure that upon Petitioner’s release, they are not left outside in dangerous
conditions. 	It is preferable to release Petitioner to counsel to ensure
humane treatment.
e. 	Respondents must release Petitioner with all personal effects, such as
driver’s licenses, passports, or immigration documents.
f. 	The 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 May 5, 2026.
Further, 	the 	parties 	shall 	advise 	the 	Court 	whether 	any 	additional
CASE 0:26-cv-02188-JRT-DJF Doc. 8 Filed 04/30/26 Page 6 of 7

-7-
proceedings in this matter are required and submit any proposals for the
scope of further litigation.
DATED: April 30, 2026 	_____/s/ John R. Tunheim_____
at Minneapolis, Minnesota. 	JOHN R. TUNHEIM
United States District Judge
CASE 0:26-cv-02188-JRT-DJF Doc. 8 Filed 04/30/26 Page 7 of 7