Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Juan M.,
Petitioner,
v.
Pamela Bondi, U.S. Attorney General;
Kristi Noem, U.S. Department of Homeland
Security, Secretary; Todd M. Lyons, U.S.
Immigration & Customs Enforcement,
Acting Director; and David Easterwood,
Acting Director, U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement, St. Paul Field Office,
Respondents.
File No. 26-cv-266 (ECT/JFD)
OPINION AND ORDER
Isabelle Plunkett, Roseville, MN, for Petitioner Juan Antonio Carmona Martinez.
Ana H. Voss,1 United States Attorney’s Office, Minneapolis, MN, for Respondents Pamela
Bondi, Kristi Noem, Todd M. Lyons, and David Easterwood.
Petitioner Juan M. has filed a Verified Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
(“Petition” or “Pet.”) [ECF No. 1]. Juan is a Mexican citizen who entered the United States
on a B-2 visitor visa in 2016 when he was eleven years old, and he has remained in the
United States with his family since that time. 	Pet. ¶ 2; see also ECF No. 1-1. 	“In 2022,
Juan’s mother filed Form I-918, Petition for U Nonimmigrant status (hereinafter ‘U-visa’)
for her and her children having been victims of a crime.” Id. ¶ 2. “In November of 2024,
1 	The Government’s response in this matter was signed by Matthew Ishihara on
behalf of the United States Attorney’s Office. See ECF No. 4. Mr. Ishihara has not filed
a notice of appearance in this case.
CASE 0:26-cv-00266-ECT-JFD Doc. 5 Filed 01/17/26 Page 1 of 4

2
USCIS granted Juan a bona fide determination (‘BFD’) and issued him an employment
authorization document, formally placing Juan in deferred-action status while his U-visa
awaits adjudication.” 	Id. ¶ 3; ECF No. 1-2 (notice of Juan’s “employment authorization
document and grant of deferred action [that] are valid for a period of four years”); ECF No.
1-3 (Approval Notice of employment authorization). 	On January 13, 2025, Juan “was
suddenly stopped by several unmarked vehicles while he was driving to work.” 	Id. ¶ 6.
“Despite showing the ICE agents his deferred action from USCIS and valid U-visa based
work permit, the agents chose to arrest him.” 	Id. 	“Respondents did not provide to
Petitioner nor his counsel, nor have they yet provided, any written custody determination,
any verbal or written explanation for his detention, or a Notice to Appear (NTA) placing
him into removal proceedings pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a).” Id. at 7. Juan’s “last known
whereabouts were at the ICE office in Fort Snelling, Minnesota, late in the evening on
January 13, 2026.” 	Id. ¶ 10. 	Juan maintains that his detention violates his Fifth
Amendment rights to substantive and procedural due process. 	See id. ¶¶ 57–65. 	Juan
asserts that deferred action status entitles him to immediate release. See id. at 16. He does
not seek a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). 	See generally Pet.
Respondents filed a one-paragraph response to Juan’s Petition, stating:
Petitioner filed this petition for a writ of habeas corpus to
secure 	a 	release 	or 	a 	bond 	hearing 	in 	connection 	with
Petitioner’s detention by the U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement. This petition raises legal and factual issues
similar to those in prior habeas petitions this Court has decided.
Those 	issues 	are 	currently 	before 	the 	Eighth 	Circuit 	on
expedited review in Avila v. Bondi, No. 25-3248 (8th Cir.
docketed Nov. 10, 2025). For purposes of expediting these
proceedings, the Federal Respondents, Kristi Noem, Todd
CASE 0:26-cv-00266-ECT-JFD Doc. 5 Filed 01/17/26 Page 2 of 4

3
Lyons, and David Easterwood, assert all arguments raised by
the government in Avila, preserve those arguments for any
appeal in this case, and respectfully request that the Court deny
Petitioner’s habeas petition.
ECF No. 4 at 1. 	But Avila is inapposite. See Avila v. Bondi, No. 25-cv-3741 (JRT/SGE),
2025 WL 2976539 (D. Minn. Oct. 21, 2025). 	That case considered a petitioner’s
entitlement to a bond hearing under the legal framework of U.S.C. §§ 1225 and 1226, and
the petitioner there did not assert that he was under deferred action when he was taken into
custody. 	See id. at *5 (stating that “[h]ere, Petitioner has lived in the country for years
without seeking any lawful immigration status, such as naturalization, asylum, refugee
designation, permanent residency, or a visa”).
Respondents did not respond to Juan’s arguments about deferred action, see ECF
No. 4, meaning Respondents waived any challenge to these arguments. 	See Doe v.
Mayorkas, No. 22-cv-752 (ECT/DTS), 2022 WL 4450272, at *2 (D. Minn. Sep. 23, 2022)
(citing Espey v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC, No. 13-cv-2979 (ADM/JSM), 2014 WL 2818657,
at *11 (D. Minn. June 19, 2014) (collecting cases)).
ORDER
Accordingly, based on the foregoing, and on all the files, records, and proceedings
herein, IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. 	Petitioner Juan M.’s Verified Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [ECF No.
1] is GRANTED.
CASE 0:26-cv-00266-ECT-JFD Doc. 5 Filed 01/17/26 Page 3 of 4

4
2. 	Respondents shall release Petitioner from custody immediately, but no later
than within 48 hours of this Order.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: January 17, 2026, at 4:58 p.m. 	s/ Eric C. Tostrud
Eric C. Tostrud
United States District Court
CASE 0:26-cv-00266-ECT-JFD Doc. 5 Filed 01/17/26 Page 4 of 4