Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Emily Egart, Lydia Lockwood, Mary M. Nikolai, GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC,
120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600, Minneapolis, MN 55402, for Petitioner.
Ana H. Voss, David W. Fuller, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, 300
South Fourth Street, Suite 600, Minneapolis, MN 55415 for Respondents.
On January 26, 2026, Petitioner, a citizen of Mexico, filed a Verified Petition for
Writ of Habeas Corpus. (Docket No. 1.) He was arrested by U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE) officials on January 25, 2026. Because the Court concludes that it has
jurisdiction, and that Petitioner is being detained unlawfully, the Court will grant the
petition and order Petitioner’s immediate release.
JOSE M.A.P.,
Petitioner,
v.
KRISTI NOEM, Secretary, U.S. Department
of Homeland Security;
UNITED 	STATES 	DEPARTMENT 	OF
HOMELAND SECURITY;
PAMELA BONDI, United States Attorney
General; and
TODD 	M. 	LYONS, 	Acting 	Director 	of
Immigration and Customs Enforcement,
Respondents.
Civil No. 26-689 (JRT/DJF)
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
GRANTING PETITION FOR WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS
CASE 0:26-cv-00689-JRT-DJF Doc. 7 Filed 02/01/26 Page 1 of 6

-2-
BACKGROUND
Petitioner is a citizen of Mexico, has been present in the United States since 2007,
and has no criminal history, aside from minor traffic violations. (Verified Pet. Writ Habeas
Corpus (“Pet.”) ¶ 30, 33.) Petitioner alleges that on January 25, 2026, while driving his
parents to church in Mounds View, Minnesota, he was pulled over and arrested by ICE
officials. (Id. ¶ 34.) Petitioner’s mother called Petitioner’s brother, a naturalized citizen,
who spoke with an officer and informed him that “Petitioner has diabetes and sometimes
requires medication.” (Id.) The officer responded with “something like ‘there isn’t much
we can do about that.’” (Id.)
Petitioner alleges that he was initially detained in Minnesota following his 4:00
p.m. arrest on January 25, 2026, but that Respondents transferred him to a detention
facility in Texas almost immediately, where he arrived at 3:00 p.m. on January 26, 2026.
(Id. ¶ 11.) During this period, “[d]espite multiple efforts to search for [Petitioner] in the
ICE online detainee locator system, counsel was unable to locate him.” 	(Id. ¶ 36.)
Petitioner alleges that he is being unlawfully detained and seeks a writ of habeas corpus.
(Id. at 20.)
DISCUSSION
Respondents first challenge this Court’s jurisdiction, arguing that Petitioner did not
file his habeas petition in this District while he was physically detained here. In a typical
case involving a habeas petition brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a), a petitioner who
“seeks to challenge his present physical custody within the United States . . . should name
CASE 0:26-cv-00689-JRT-DJF Doc. 7 Filed 02/01/26 Page 2 of 6

-3-
his warden as respondent and file the petition in the district of confinement.” Rumsfeld
v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 447 (2004). As this Court has noted in other cases, exceptions
exist to the default district-of-confinement rule. See id. at 435; see also Xia v. King, No.
24-2000, 2025 WL 240792, at *2 (D. Minn. Jan. 17, 2025) (recognizing the existence of
certain exceptions). 	For example, the Supreme Court has recognized that when “a
prisoner is held in an undisclosed location by an unknown custodian, it is impossible to
apply” the typical rules for determining the proper forum for a habeas petition. Padilla,
542 U.S. at 450 n.18.
Both parties informed the Court that Petitioner has now been returned to
Minnesota. (See Docket No. 5 at 1 n.1, Docket No. 6 at 2.) Therefore, the Court will reject
Respondents’ request for dismissal or transfer. But even if Petitioner was still detained
in Texas, exceptions to the default jurisdictional rules would have applied, because when
“Government-controlled transfers,” like the one in this case are “executed within hours
of detention and before communication with counsel is possible” such conduct “risk[s]
defeating timely judicial review.” E.E. v. Bondi, No. 26-314, Docket No. 7 at 5 (D. Minn.
Jan. 17, 2026). For these reasons, the Court finds that it has jurisdiction.
Turning to the merits, Respondents rely on 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) to justify
Petitioner’s detention, and the Court rejects that justification. After thorough review of
the parties’ filings, the Court concludes that the legal issues presented by Petitioner’s
habeas petition are subject to the same analysis the Court recently employed in Herrera
CASE 0:26-cv-00689-JRT-DJF Doc. 7 Filed 02/01/26 Page 3 of 6

-4-
Avila v. Bondi, No. 25-3741, 2025 WL 2976539 (D. Minn. Oct. 21, 2025) and Romero
Santuario v. Bondi, No. 25-4296, 2025 WL 3469577 (D. Minn, Dec. 2, 2025). 	Section
1225(b)(2) does not authorize the warrantless, notice-less arrest of an individual already
present in the United States—indeed, driving his parents to church in the country in which
he has lived for nearly twenty years. For the same reasons articulated in Herrera Avila
and Romero Santuario, the Court concludes that it possesses jurisdiction over this
petition, and that Petitioner’s detention is not authorized by § 1225(b)(2).
The Court therefore turns to the proper remedy. In previous cases involving this
issue, the Court has concluded that a bond hearing pursuant to § 1226(a) is the
appropriate remedy. 	However, the Court is now persuaded that where, as here,
(1) Respondents erroneously assert that a detainee is being held pursuant to § 1225(b)(2);
and (2) Respondents have not produced a warrant, as is required to effectuate an arrest
pursuant to § 1226(a), the appropriate remedy is release from custody. See, e.g., Ahmed
M. v. Bondi, No. 25-4711, 2026 WL 25627, at *3 (D. Minn. Jan. 5, 2026); Lauro M. v. Bondi,
No. 26-134, 2026 WL 115022, at *3 (D. Minn. Jan. 15, 2026); cf. Munaf v. Geren, 553 U.S.
674, 693 (2008) (“Habeas is at its core a remedy for unlawful executive detention. . . . The
typical remedy for such detention is, of course, release.”).
ORDER
Based on the foregoing, and all the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED that:
CASE 0:26-cv-00689-JRT-DJF Doc. 7 Filed 02/01/26 Page 4 of 6

-5-
1. 	Petitioner Jose M.A.P.’s Verified Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Docket No.
[1]) is GRANTED, as follows:
a. 	Petitioner 	is 	not 	subject 	to 	mandatory 	detention 	under 	8 	U.S.C.
§ 1225(b)(2).
b. 	If Petitioner is presently detained outside of the District 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 remains in detention 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 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 dangerous cold. 	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, 	and 	without
conditions such as location tracking devices.
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 February 4,
CASE 0:26-cv-00689-JRT-DJF Doc. 7 Filed 02/01/26 Page 5 of 6

-6-
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: February 1, 2026 	_____/s/ John R. Tunheim ____
at Minneapolis, Minnesota. 	JOHN R. TUNHEIM
United States District Judge
CASE 0:26-cv-00689-JRT-DJF Doc. 7 Filed 02/01/26 Page 6 of 6