Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Elder C.C.,
Petitioner,
v.
Todd Blanche, Acting U.S. Attorney
General; Daren K. Margolin, Director for
Executive Office for Immigration Review;
Markwayne Mullin, Secretary, U.S.
Department of Homeland Security; David J.
Venturella,1 Acting Director of Immigration
and Customs Enforcement; David
Easterwood, Acting Director, St. Paul Field
Office, Immigration and Customs
Enforcement; Eric Tollefson, Kandiyohi
County Sheriff,
Respondents.
File No. 26-cv-03832 (ECT/ECW)
OPINION AND ORDER
Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright issued a Report and Recommendation
(“R&R”) dated September 14, 2026. ECF No. 8. Judge Cowan Wright recommended that
Petitioner Elder C.C.’s Verified Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [ECF No. 1] be granted
and that Elder be immediately released [ECF No. 8 at 19]. Respondents2 objected to the
1 	David Venturella is substituted for Todd M. Lyons pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 25(d).
2 	“Respondents” refers to Acting Attorney General Blanche, Director Margolin,
Secretary Mullin, Acting Director Venturella, and Acting Director Easterwood. 	Sheriff
Tollefson has not appeared in these proceedings.
CASE 0:26-cv-03832-ECT-ECW Doc. 12 Filed 10/08/26 Page 1 of 7

2
R&R [ECF No. 10], triggering de novo review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local
Rule 72.2(b)(3).
Elder C.C. is a citizen of Mexico. Pet. ¶¶ 11, 27. In 2018, Elder “entered the United
States without inspection” [Pet. ¶ 30], and on August 25, 2026, Respondents stopped a
vehicle in which Elder was a passenger [ECF No. 6 ¶ 5]. During this stop, Elder admitted
to Respondents “that he was in the United States illegally.” ECF No. 6 ¶ 5. Respondents
“performed a DHS database search that returned no record of [Elder] ever registering his
address 	with 	Immigration 	and 	Customs 	Enforcement 	(ICE).” 	Id. 	Based 	on 	this
information, Respondents “determined that [Elder] was a flight risk,” “placed [Elder] under
arrest and transported [Elder] to . . . Fort Snelling . . . for administrative processing.” Id.;
Pet. ¶ 33. Respondents did not have a warrant for Elder’s arrest when they arrested him.
ECF No. 6 ¶¶ 5–6; Pet. ¶ 34.
At Fort Snelling, Respondents issued and served Elder with a Notice to Appear.
ECF No. 6 ¶ 6; ECF No. 6-2. 	Also at Fort Snelling, Respondents issued an I-200 arrest
warrant, and a deportation officer “served [Elder] the Form I-200.” ECF No. 6 ¶ 6; ECF
No. 6-3. 	Elder was then transported to the Kandiyohi County Jail, “where he remains
detained.” 	ECF No. 6 ¶ 7; Pet. ¶¶ 36–37. 	When Elder was seized, he “was living at a
stable home address,” “had been in the United States for years,” and had “built ties to his
community.” 	Pet. ¶ 35. 	Elder also “fully complied with the ICE officers and in no way
tried to disobey or flee.” Id.
Elder filed this habeas petition on August 31, 2026. 	See Pet. 	Elder contends that
his detention violates the Fifth Amendment, the Fourth Amendment, the Administrative
CASE 0:26-cv-03832-ECT-ECW Doc. 12 Filed 10/08/26 Page 2 of 7

3
Procedure Act, and the Accardi doctrine. 	Pet. ¶¶ 68–102. 	Elder seeks release, or, in the
alternative, a bond hearing. Pet. at 24–25.
In the R&R, Judge Wright determined that Elder was arrested unlawfully and
recommended that his Petition be granted and that Elder be released. 	ECF No. 8 at 19.
Judge Wright first determined that Elder was detained pursuant to 1226(a), rather than
1225(b)(2)(A), and rejected Respondents’ 	argument that Elder 	“is foreclosed from
challenging his arrest in habeas proceedings due to his pending immigration proceedings.”
ECF No. 6–11 (addressing and rejecting Respondents’ arguments based on Arias v. Rogers,
676 F.2d 1139 (7th Cir. 1982), INS v. Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U.S. 1032, 1039 (1984), and
Min-Shey Hung v. United States, 617 F.2d 201, 202 (10th Cir. 1980)). Judge Wright then
concluded that, because the warrant for Elder’s arrest was issued after his arrest, his arrest
needed to comply with the warrantless arrest requirements of 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(2), and
Respondents failed to meet these requirements. ECF No. 8 at 12–17.
As a preliminary matter, Judge Wright disagreed with Respondents’ assertion that
Elder was detained pursuant to § 1225(b)(2)(A). 	ECF No. 8 at 8. 	Relying on the I-200
warrant’s language, Judge Wright explained that Elder was detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C.
§ 1226 and, therefore, a warrant was required for his arrest under the plain language of §
1226. 	Id. 	I have previously come to the opposite conclusion. 	See Venancio P.J. v.
Blanche, No. 26-cv-2740 (ECT/JFD), 2026 WL 1862252, at *2 (D. Minn. June 29, 2026).
For the reasons explained in that case, I determine that Respondents detained Elder
pursuant to § 1225(b)(2)(A).
CASE 0:26-cv-03832-ECT-ECW Doc. 12 Filed 10/08/26 Page 3 of 7

4
My determination that Elder was detained pursuant to § 1225(b)(2)(A) does not,
however, mean that Respondents were permitted to arrest him without a valid warrant. See
Islamuddin A. v. Blanche, No. 26-cv-3340 (ECT/JFD), 2026 WL 2546280, at *4 (D. Minn.
Aug. 28, 2026). 	The great weight of persuasive authority from this District supports the
legal conclusion that a warrantless arrest under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) must comply with §
1357. 	Luis A.S. v. Easterwood, No. 26-cv-2447 (PJS/DTS), slip op. at 8 (D. Minn. May
26, 2026), ECF No. 9 (“ICE [cannot] simply arrest anyone who is subject to mandatory
detention. 	Rather, ICE could detain [petitioner] only if it first complied with 8 U.S.C.
§ 1357(a), which addresses federal immigration officials’ authority to make warrantless
arrests.” (citation modified)); Juan J.M.E. v. Easterwood, No. 26-cv-2270 (KMM/EMB),
2026 WL 1746672, at *3 (D. Minn. June 8, 2026) (“[I]f Congress wanted to make clear
that 1225(b) provided a separate basis to arrest a noncitizen, ‘it could have easily done so.’”
(quoting Avila v. Bondi, 170 F.4th 1128, 1134 (8th Cir. 2026), reh’g and reh’g en banc
denied sub nom., 2026 WL 1746744 (8th Cir. June 17, 2026))), R. & R. adopted sub nom.
Juan M.E. v. Easterwood, 2026 WL 1747756 (D. Minn. June 17, 2026); Francisco M.A. v.
Blanche, No. 26-cv-2032 (JRT/EMB), 2026 WL 1229701, at *2 (D. Minn. May 5, 2026);
Fernando C. C. v. Bondi, No. 26-cv-1235 (LMP/JFD), 2026 WL 446408, at *2 (D. Minn.
Feb. 17, 2026); Martha C.G.P. v. Blanche, No. 26-cv-2308 (DWF/JFD), 2026 WL
1329577, at *3 (D. Minn. May 13, 2026); see also Espinoza-Avalos v. Blanche, No.
8:26CV191, 2026 WL 1396593, at *2 (D. Neb. May 19, 2026). I have previously found
these decisions persuasive and do so again here.
CASE 0:26-cv-03832-ECT-ECW Doc. 12 Filed 10/08/26 Page 4 of 7

5
Section 1357(a)(2) requires an arresting officer to have “reason to believe that the
alien so arrested . . . is likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained for his arrest.” 8
U.S.C. § 1357(a)(2). 	The requirement “considers not just whether the noncitizen will be
located at the scene of encounter with immigration enforcement but also whether
immigration enforcement would be able to arrest the noncitizens at another clearly
identifiable location.” 	Walther A. S. v. Blanche, No. 26-cv-2804 (LMP/SGE), 2026 WL
1734906, at *3 (D. Minn. June 16, 2026) (citation modified). Respondents have not shown
that Elder was “likely to escape before a warrant [could] be obtained for his arrest.” 	8
U.S.C. § 1357(a)(2).
Respondents contend that because the arresting officers knew Elder had not
registered his address and because Elder “did not provide this information during the
encounter,” the officers believed Elder to be a flight risk. ECF No. 10 at 1–2; ECF No. 6
¶ 5; ECF No. 5 at 9–10.3 But, as Judge Wright noted [ECF No. 8 at 15], there is no evidence
that the officers asked Elder for his home address during the stop, nor is there evidence
indicating that officers inquired about Elder’s place of employment, family, or community
ties or sought any other information from Elder relevant to the flight risk determination.
See ECF No. 6-1 (detailing that officers “asked [Elder] if he had any documents that would
allow him to reside in the United States legally,” that “DHS databases retuned [sic] no
3 	Respondents additionally note that “the subjects of the vehicle were in complete
control of the vehicle and could have easily left the scene and never to be found again.”
ECF No. 5 at 10. But the Form I-213 explains that Elder was questioned “subsiquent [sic]
to [the vehicle owner’s] arrest,” and it gives no reason to think the vehicle could have been
driven off as Respondents assert. ECF No. 6-1 at 2–3.
CASE 0:26-cv-03832-ECT-ECW Doc. 12 Filed 10/08/26 Page 5 of 7

6
record of [Elder] ever registering his address with immigration and Customs Enforcement,”
and that “due to this fact [Elder] was deemed a flight risk”). 	There is also no indication
that Elder failed to comply with Respondents’ requests for information. 	He was
cooperative during the encounter. See ECF No. 6 ¶ 5 (explaining that, when officers asked
“if he had any documents that would allow him to reside in the United States legally,”
Elder “stated that he was in the United States illegally”). 	Elder’s failure to register his
address or volunteer information that officers did not request is insufficient to demonstrate
that Elder was likely to escape before a warrant could be obtained. 	See Manual P.N. v.
Easterwood, No. 26-cv-3799 (ECT/DJF), 2026 WL 2823650, at *2 (D. Minn. Sept. 21,
2026) (holding that a noncitizen was not “likely to escape” within the meaning of § 1357
where the noncitizen stopped his vehicle voluntarily, “freely admitted that he did not have
legal authorization to be in the country,” had “failed to register his address,” and “lack[ed]
. . . identification containing a current address” (citation modified)).
Respondents object to Judge Wright’s rejection of Arias v. Rogers. 	See ECF No.
10 at 1. 	I have previously declined to adopt Arias for the propositions that a habeas
petitioner in removal proceedings cannot challenge an unlawful arrest or that release is not
the appropriate remedy. See Sorelys C.R.O. v. Blanche, No. 26-cv-3859 (ECT/LIB), 2026
WL 2665657, at *2 (D. Minn. Sept. 10, 2026). As in Sorelys, Respondents here concede
that the Eighth Circuit has not addressed this issue [ECF No. 5 at 5], and the weight of
persuasive authority from this District supports this conclusion, see Wilson P. v. Blanche,
No. 26-cv-3448 (JMB/SGE), 2026 WL 2294612, at *5–6; Walther A.S., 2026 WL
1734906, at *4 (D. Minn. June 16, 2026); Luis A.S., slip op. at 9. Because Elder’s arrest
CASE 0:26-cv-03832-ECT-ECW Doc. 12 Filed 10/08/26 Page 6 of 7

7
was warrantless and because I conclude that Respondents have not shown that his arrest
complied with § 1357(a)(2), Elder’s Petition will be granted, and he will be ordered
released.
ORDER
Therefore, based on the foregoing, and on all the files, records, and proceedings in
this case, IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. 	The 	Report 	and 	Recommendation 	[ECF 	No. 	8] 	is 	ACCEPTED 	as
described above;
2. 	Respondents’ objections [ECF No. 10] are OVERRULED as described
above;
3. 	Petitioner Elder C.C.’s Verified Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [ECF
No. 1] is GRANTED; and
4. 	Respondents shall release Petitioner Elder C.C. from immigration custody
immediately.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: October 8, 2026 	s/ Eric C. Tostrud
Eric C. Tostrud
Chief Judge, United States District Court
CASE 0:26-cv-03832-ECT-ECW Doc. 12 Filed 10/08/26 Page 7 of 7