Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Walter L.,
Petitioner,
v.
Pamela Bondi, Attorney General;
Kristi Noem, Secretary, U.S.
Department of Homeland Security;
Department of Homeland Security;
Todd M. Lyons, Acting Director of
Immigration and Customs
Enforcement; Immigration and
Customs Enforcement; Daren K.
Margolin, Director for Executive
Office for Immigration Review;
Executive Office for Immigration
Review; David Easterwood, Acting
Director, St. Paul Field Office,
Immigration and Customs
Enforcement,
Respondents.
Case No. 26-CV-607 (MJD/EMB)
REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION
Before the Court is the Petitioner Walter L.’s1 Verified Petition for Writ
of Habeas Corpus (Dkt. No. 1). Respondents filed a response (Dkt. No. 5),
and Walter L. filed a reply (Dkt. No. 6).
1 This District has adopted a policy of using only the first name and last
initial of any nongovernmental parties in immigration cases.
CASE 0:26-cv-00607-MJD-EMB Doc. 8 Filed 01/29/26 Page 1 of 8

2
This case has been referred to the undersigned for a report and
recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Local Rule 72.1. For the
following reasons, I recommend the Verified Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus (Dkt. No. 1) be granted, and Respondents be ordered to release
Walter L. immediately.
I. Background
Petitioner Walter L. is a citizen of Ecuador. (Dkt. No. 1 ¶¶ 13, 27.) In
or around 2013, Walter L. entered the United States without inspection. (Id.
¶ 28.) After arriving in the country, Walter L. filed a petition for U
nonimmigrant status, which remains pending.2 (Id. ¶ 30.) Prior to his
detention, he was living in Anoka County, Minnesota. (Id. ¶ 13.)
Respondents took Walter L. into Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (“ICE”) custody on January 23, 2026, without a warrant. (Id.
¶ 32; id. at 24 ¶ 5.) Respondents have refused to provide Walter L. with a
bond hearing, although he “has no criminal history that subjects him to
2 “The U nonimmigrant status (U visa) is set aside for victims of certain
crimes who have suffered mental or physical abuse and are helpful to law
enforcement or government officials in the investigation or prosecution of
criminal activity.” Victor F.M. v. Bondi, 25-CV-4778 (ECT/SGE), 2026 WL
25968, at *1 (D. Minn. Jan. 5, 2026) (quoting Victims of Criminal Activity: U
Nonimmigrant Status, U.S. Citizenship & Immigr. Servs.
https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/victims-of-criminal-activity-u-
nonimmigrant-status); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(U).
CASE 0:26-cv-00607-MJD-EMB Doc. 8 Filed 01/29/26 Page 2 of 8

3
mandatory custody.” (Id. ¶ 34.) Walter L. remains in ICE custody “at an
unknown facility in Minnesota.” (Id. ¶¶ 14, 36.)
II. Legal Standard
Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, the Court may grant a writ of habeas corpus to
any petitioner who demonstrates he is “in custody in violation of the
Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3);
see also Rasul v. Bush, 542 U.S. 466, 473 (2004)). The right to challenge
unlawful detention under § 2241 “extends to those persons challenging the
lawfulness of immigration-related detention.” Deng Chol A. v. Barr, 455 F.
Supp. 3d 896, 900–01 (D. Minn. 2020) (citing Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S.
678, 687 (2001)). “The habeas petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating
by a preponderance of the evidence that their detention is unlawful.”
Maldonado v. Olson, 795 F. Supp. 3d 1134, 1143 (D. Minn. 2025).
III. Analysis
Walter L. claims he is being unlawfully detained and asks the Court to
either order a bond hearing or immediately release him. (Id. ¶¶ 65, 69.)
The Honorable Michael J. Davis ordered Respondents to show cause
why Walter L.’s writ should not be granted in this case. (Dkt. No. 3 ¶ 1.) He
also ordered them to provide affidavits or exhibits “to establish the
lawfulness and correct duration of [Walter L.’]s detention,” and to explain
CASE 0:26-cv-00607-MJD-EMB Doc. 8 Filed 01/29/26 Page 3 of 8

4
“[w]hether the absence of a warrant preceding [Walter L.]’s arrest
necessitates [his] immediate release.” (Id. ¶ 2(a), (d).)
Respondents concede that Walter L.’s case largely “presents similar
legal and factual issues to prior habeas petitions” that this Court has decided
and which are currently on appeal in Avila v. Bondi, No. 25-3248 (8th Cir.
Docketed Nov. 10, 2025). (Dkt. No. 5 at 3.) In that case, and many others in
this district, the Court has decided that a noncitizen “who has lived in the
United States for years but was never lawfully admitted to the country” is
not an “an alien seeking admission” and is therefore not subject to mandatory
detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). Avila v. Bondi, CV 25-3741
(JRT/SGE), 2025 WL 2976539, at *5 (D. Minn. Oct. 21, 2025). Rather, 8
U.S.C. § 1226(a) governs in such situations, and it requires Respondents to
provide a bond hearing prior to detaining a noncitizen. See id. at *7.
I need not provide a detailed analysis of the interplay between §
1225(b)(2) and § 1226(a) because Judge Davis has already ruled consistently
with Avila in similar cases. See Beltran v. Bondi, No. 25-cv-4604-MJD-DTS,
2025 WL 3719856, at *3 (D. Minn. Dec. 23, 2025); Awaale v. Noem, No. 25-cv-
4551-MJD-JFD, 2025 WL 3754012 (D. Minn. Dec. 29, 2025). I see no reason
to stray from that reasoned analysis of the text, despite Respondents’ proffer
off additional cases adopting the minority viewpoint.
CASE 0:26-cv-00607-MJD-EMB Doc. 8 Filed 01/29/26 Page 4 of 8

5
I recognize, however, that Respondents urge the Court to find that §
1225(b)(2) governs in this case because Walter L. “is ‘seeking admission’
through his pending U-visa application and was doing so at the time of his
recent arrest.” (Dkt. No. 5 at 7.) But, again, judges in this district have
already considered and rejected this argument as inconsistent with the
statutory text. See, e.g., Emir S. v. Bondi, Case No. 26-cv-00347-ADM/EMB
(D. Minn. Jan. 24, 2026) (concluding similarly situated petitioner was not
“seeking admission” under statutory definition—which references “entry” into
the country—but was instead seeking “a lawful means of remaining in the
United States”); Victor F.M. v. Bondi, 25-CV-4778 (ECT/SGE), 2026 WL
25968, at *2 (D. Minn. Jan. 5, 2026) (rejecting same argument and citing
cases).
Walter L. has lived in this country for over a decade and applied for U
nonimmigrant status after he arrived here. Because he was “already present
within the country” when he filed his application, “§ 1226 governs.” Mayamu
K. v. Bondi, 25-3035 (JWB/LIB), 2025 WL 3641819, at *8 (D. Minn. Oct. 20,
2025). Respondents’ reliance on Chen v. Almodovar, 1:25-CV-8350-MKV,
2025 WL 3484855, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 4, 2025), an out-of-circuit district
court case adopting the minority viewpoint, is unpersuasive. Given this
Court’s prior rulings in materially factually and legally indistinguishable
cases, I recommend that the Court grant Walter L.’s petition.
CASE 0:26-cv-00607-MJD-EMB Doc. 8 Filed 01/29/26 Page 5 of 8

6
Further, I recommend Respondents be ordered to immediately release
Walter L. Respondents believe that, even if the Court concludes Walter L. “is
detained under § 1226(a) and not under § 1225(b)(2), [] the appropriate
remedy is to order a custody redetermination hearing instead of immediate
release.” (Dkt. No. 5 at 8.) But an arrest warrant is a prerequisite to
detention under § 1226(a). Ahmed M. v. Bondi, 25-CV-4711 (ECT/SGE), 2026
WL 25627, at *3 (D. Minn. Jan. 5, 2026). Walter L. alleges his arrest was
warrantless and—despite Judge Davis’s directive—Respondents did not
provide an arrest warrant or address “whether the absence of a warrant
preceding Petitioner’s arrest necessitates Petitioner’s immediate release.”
(Dkt. No. 4 ¶ 2(d).)
Respondents have therefore abdicated their opportunity to argue
against immediate release. Given Respondents’ concessions in this case, I
recommend that Petitioner be immediately released. See Munaf v. Geren, 553
U.S. 674, 693 (2008) (noting that the “typical remedy [for unlawful executive
detention] is, of course, release”); see also Roseline K. N. v. Bondi, No. 26-cv-
540-KMM-SGE, 2026 WL 185069, at *2 (D. Minn. Jan. 25, 2026) (ordering
immediate release when government “has not claimed to have a ‘warrant
issued by the Attorney General’ supporting Petitioner’s recent arrest, nor has
the government produced one to the Court”).
CASE 0:26-cv-00607-MJD-EMB Doc. 8 Filed 01/29/26 Page 6 of 8

7
Finally, I draw the parties’ attention to the atypically short deadlines
for filing objections to this Report and Recommendation and responses to
those objections, set forth in the “Notice” below.
RECOMMENDATION
Based upon the foregoing, and on all of the files, records, and
proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED THAT:
1. Walter L.’s Verified Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Dkt. No. 1) be
GRANTED;
2. Respondents be ORDERED to immediately release Walter L.; and
3. Respondents be ORDERED to file a notice confirming such release
within 24 hours of the entry of an order granting such relief.
Dated: January 29, 2026 s/Elsa M. Bullard
Elsa M. Bullard
United States Magistrate Judge
NOTICE
Filing Objections: This Report and Recommendation is not an order or
judgment of the District Court and is therefore not appealable directly to the
Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Under Local Rule 72.2(b)(1): “A party may file and serve specific written
objections to a magistrate judge’s proposed findings and recommendations
within 14 days after being served with a copy of the recommended
disposition, unless the court sets a different deadline.” Here, the Court
provides a 3-day deadline for objections, and a 2-day deadline for
CASE 0:26-cv-00607-MJD-EMB Doc. 8 Filed 01/29/26 Page 7 of 8

8
responses to objections. All objections and responses must comply with the
word or line limits set forth in Local Rule 72.2(c).
CASE 0:26-cv-00607-MJD-EMB Doc. 8 Filed 01/29/26 Page 8 of 8