Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Emily Curran, HOUSING JUSTICE CENTER, Northwestern Building, 275 East
Fourth Street, Suite 590, St. Paul, MN 55101, for Petitioner.
David W. Fuller, Matthew Isihara, and Trevor Brown, UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, 300 South Fourth Street, Suite 600, Minneapolis, MN
55415 for Respondents.
Petitioner Holger P.A.P. was arrested and detained by United States Immigration
and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) on January 22, 2026. Holger P.A.P. petitions for a writ
HOLGER P.A.P.,
Petitioner,
v.
PAMELA BONDI, U.S. Attorney General;
KRISTI NOEM, 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; and
ERIC 	TOLLEFSON, 	Sheriff 	of 	Kandiyohi
County,
Respondents.
Civil No. 26-571 (JRT/LIB)
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
REJECTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION AND GRANTING
PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
CASE 0:26-cv-00571-JRT-LIB Doc. 19 Filed 03/13/26 Page 1 of 8

-2-
of habeas corpus, arguing that he is being detained unlawfully. On February 13, 2026,
United States Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois issued a Report and Recommendation
(R&R), recommending that Holger P.A.P.’s amended petition be denied without prejudice.
Because the Court concludes that Holger P.A.P.’s detention is unlawful, the Court will
sustain Petitioner’s objection, reject the R&R, and order that Petitioner be released from
custody.
BACKGROUND
Holger P.A.P. is a citizen of Ecuador and a resident of Minneapolis, Minnesota. (Am.
Verified Pet. Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Pet.”) ¶ 13, Feb. 9, 2026, Docket No. 9.) On August
10, 2023, United States Border Patrol encountered Petitioner near Lukeville, Arizona.
(Decl. of James L. Van Der Vaart ¶ 5, Jan. 26, 2026, Docket No. 6.) Petitioner stated that
he had entered the United States illegally, and United States Border Patrol issued an
Expedited Removal Order. (Id.) After receiving the Expedited Removal Order, Petitioner
claimed a fear of returning to his home country, and Border Patrol submitted a Credible
Fear claim request to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) on
August 16, 2023. 	(Id. ¶¶ 5–6.) 	On August 29, 2023, USCIS issued a Notice to Appear,
scheduling a removal hearing. (Id. ¶ 7.) Petitioner failed to appear for his removal hearing,
and on November 25, 2024, an immigration judge ordered that Petitioner be removed.
(Id. ¶ 10.) At no point was Petitioner detained during these proceedings.
On January 22, 2026, ICE arrested Holger P.A.P. without a warrant after he had just
returned home and parked his car in the garage. 	(Pet. ¶ 19.) 	Between November 25,
CASE 0:26-cv-00571-JRT-LIB Doc. 19 Filed 03/13/26 Page 2 of 8

-3-
2024, the day he was ordered removed, and January 22, 2026, the day of his arrest, ICE
did not contact Petitioner regarding any removal efforts, and he has not been charged
with any crimes. (Id. ¶¶ 16–17.)
The same day Petitioner was arrested, he filed a Verified Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus, challenging the lawfulness of his detention. (Jan. 22, 2026, Docket No. 1.)
Petitioner then filed an Amended Verified Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. 	(Feb. 5,
2026, Docket No. 9.) 	On February 13, 2026, Magistrate Judge Brisbois issued an R&R,
recommending that the Court deny the Amended Petition without prejudice. (Docket No.
13.) Petitioner timely objected to the R&R on February 21, 2026. (Docket No. 14.) On
March 7, 2026, Respondents requested an extension of time to respond to Petitioner’s
objections (Docket No. 15), and Petitioner opposed the request (Docket No. 16).
Respondents submitted an untimely response to Petitioner’s objections on March 9, 2026.
(Docket No. 18.)1
DISCUSSION
Respondents argue that 8 U.S.C. § 1231 governs Petitioner’s detention because
Petitioner is subject to a final order for removal.
1 The Court will deny Respondents’ request for an extension of time to file a response to
Petitioner’s request, and declines to consider any response to Petitioner’s objections to the R&R.
See D. Minn. LR 72.2(b)(2). However, the Court notes that after reviewing Respondents’ March
9, 2026 submission, the Court is not persuaded that Petitioner’s detention is lawful on the basis
asserted by Respondents, for the reasons explained below.
CASE 0:26-cv-00571-JRT-LIB Doc. 19 Filed 03/13/26 Page 3 of 8

-4-
Congress has established a statutory framework which provides that individuals
ordered removed may be detained during a 90-day removal period, from the date the
removal order becomes administratively final. 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1). A person with a final
order of removal who is not removed within the removal period “shall be subject to
supervision,” and may be required to periodically appear before an immigration officer,
obey reasonable written restrictions, and provide information or submit to medical
evaluations if necessary. Id. § 1231(a)(3). A person may be detained beyond the removal
period if they are determined to be “a risk to the community or unlikely to comply with
the order of removal[.]” Id. § 1231(a)(6).2
If 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
2 The Supreme Court explained in Zadvydas that immigration detention pursuant to 8
U.S.C. § 1231 exceeding six months raises significant constitutional concerns. Zadvydas v. Davis,
533 U.S. 678, 701 (2001). That is, the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause does not permit
indefinite detention under this statute; a six-month detention is presumptively constitutional,
after which “once the alien provides good reason to believe that there is no significant likelihood
of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future, the Government must respond with evidence
sufficient to rebut that showing.” Id. Here, the Magistrate Judge recommended the Amended
Petition be denied without prejudice because Petitioner had been in detention less than 30 days,
which falls within the presumptively constitutional six-month period. (R&R at 13.) Although the
Court agrees that Petitioner’s claim under Zadvydas appears premature, the Court will reject the
R&R on the basis that Respondents failed to follow their own regulations.
CASE 0:26-cv-00571-JRT-LIB Doc. 19 Filed 03/13/26 Page 4 of 8

-5-
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
opportunity to respond to the reasons for revocation stated in the notification.” 8 C.F.R.
§ 241.13(i)(3).
Petitioner’s re-detention is governed by § 241.13 because Petitioner likely
“provided good reason to believe there is no significant likelihood of removal to the
country to which he or she was ordered removed, or to a third country, in the reasonably
foreseeable future.” 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(a). Indeed, the record shows that Petitioner was
released into the United States after being encountered by immigration officials in August
2023. Neither Petitioner nor Respondents have produced documentation of Petitioner’s
August 2023 release, but these documents would presumably show that ICE determined
that his removal was not significantly likely in the reasonably foreseeable future.
Although 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), Respondents bear the burden
under § 241.13 of showing that “changed circumstances” justified the revocation of
release, see Yee S. v. Bondi, 806 F. Supp. 3d 894, 900 (D. Minn. 2025).
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)
CASE 0:26-cv-00571-JRT-LIB Doc. 19 Filed 03/13/26 Page 5 of 8

-6-
(citing United States ex rel. Accardi v. Shaughnessy, 347 U.S. 260, 265–68 (1954)). On the
record before the Court, Petitioner has shown that Respondents have failed to follow
their own procedures regarding the revocation of release and thus fail to show that
“changed circumstances” existed to support the conclusion that Petitioner is significantly
likely to be removed in the reasonably foreseeable future. The record does not indicate
that Petitioner was notified of the revocation of his release, as required under federal
regulations. 	See 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(i)(3). 	Nor does the record show that immigration
officials conducted an informal interview or otherwise gave Petitioner an opportunity to
respond to the revocation. Instead, Petitioner was arrested without notice or a warrant.
Because the record contains no facts showing that Respondents followed their own
procedures, and no indication that changed circumstances make Petitioner’s removal
significantly likely in the reasonably foreseeable future, or that Petitioner violated any
conditions of release, the Court concludes that Petitioner’s detention is unlawful.
Accordingly, the Court will grant Holger P.A.P.’s petition for writ of habeas corpus
and will order that he be released from custody.
ORDER
Based on the foregoing, and all the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. 	Respondents’ request for an extension of time to file a response to Petitioner’s
Objections (Docket No. [15]) is DENIED.
CASE 0:26-cv-00571-JRT-LIB Doc. 19 Filed 03/13/26 Page 6 of 8

-7-
2. 	Petitioner Holger P.A.P.’s Objection to the Report and Recommendation (Docket
No. [14]) is SUSTAINED.
3. 	The Report and Recommendation (Docket No. [13]) is REJECTED.
4. 	Petitioner Holger P.A.P.’s Amended Verified Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
(Docket No. [9]) is GRANTED, as follows:
a. 	If Petitioner was released subject to an order of supervision, Petitioner shall
be released from custody subject to the conditions, if any, in such prior
order of supervision. 	If Petitioner was not subject to a prior order of
supervision, he shall be released without conditions.
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. 	Given the potentially severe weather conditions in Minnesota, Respondents
are ORDERED to coordinate with Petitioner’s counsel to ensure that upon
Petitioner’s release, they are not left outside in inclement weather. 	It is
preferable to release Petitioner to counsel to ensure humane treatment.
CASE 0:26-cv-00571-JRT-LIB Doc. 19 Filed 03/13/26 Page 7 of 8

-8-
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 March 17, 2026.
Further, 	the 	parties 	shall 	advise 	the 	Court 	whether 	any 	additional
proceedings in this matter are required and submit any proposals for the
scope of further litigation.
DATED: March 13, 2026
at Minneapolis, Minnesota. 	JOHN R. TUNHEIM
2:30 p.m. 	United States District Judge
CASE 0:26-cv-00571-JRT-LIB Doc. 19 Filed 03/13/26 Page 8 of 8