Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Raymundo S.M.,
Petitioner,
v.
Pamela Bondi, 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,
Respondents.
Civil No. 26-846 (DWF/ECW)
MEMORANDUM
OPINION AND ORDER
INTRODUCTION
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Raymundo S.M.’s petition for a writ
of habeas corpus (the “Petition”). (Doc. No. 1.) Respondents oppose. (Doc. Nos. 4, 8.)
For the reasons set forth below, the Court denies the Petition.
BACKGROUND
Petitioner is a citizen of Mexico and a resident of Minneapolis, Minnesota. (Doc.
No. 1 ¶¶ 7, 12.) He has lived in the United States since entering without inspection
in 2015. (Id. ¶¶ 12-13.) Before that, he was ordered removed on October 27, 2010, and
removed the same day. (Doc. No. 8-1 at 3.) On the evening of January 28, 2026,
Petitioner was arrested by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement in the parking lot
CASE 0:26-cv-00846-DWF-ECW Doc. 9 Filed 02/06/26 Page 1 of 4

2
outside of his home. (Doc. No. 1 ¶ 4.) An I-200, an administrative warrant, was issued
for his arrest. (Doc. No. 8-1 at 1.)
Petitioner filed the Petition on January 30, 2026. (Doc. No. 1 at 15.) Petitioner
asserts that his detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) is unlawful because it violates the
Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, the Immigration and Nationality Act, and
the Administrative Procedure Act. (Id. ¶¶ 28-44.) Petitioner requests, among other
things, release from detention or an order requiring Respondents to provide him with a
bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226. (Id. at 13-14.)
Also on January 30, 2026, the Court ordered Respondents to answer the Petition
on or before February 2, 2026, at 12:00 p.m. CT, and enjoined Respondents from moving
Petitioner from this District pending further order. (Doc. No. 3.) Respondents timely
filed a response asking the Court to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, and alternatively,
asserting authority to detain Petitioner under 8 U.S.C. § 1231. (Doc. No. 4.) The Court
denied the motion to dismiss and asserted jurisdiction in an order dated February 3, 2026.
(Doc. No. 6 at 3.) The Court also ordered supplemental briefing, asking for evidence of
any removal order. (Id. at 4.) Respondents provided a Form I-213, a record of
deportability or inadmissibility, which noted Petitioner’s 2010 removal order. (Doc.
No. 8-1 at 3.) Petitioner did not file a supplemental reply.
DISCUSSION
A district court may provide habeas relief to a person who is being detained in
violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). That
authority includes jurisdiction to hear habeas challenges to immigration-related detention.
CASE 0:26-cv-00846-DWF-ECW Doc. 9 Filed 02/06/26 Page 2 of 4

3
Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 687 (2001); Deng Chol A. v. Barr, 455 F. Supp. 3d 896,
900-01 (D. Minn. 2020). The burden is on the petitioner to prove illegal detention by a
preponderance of the evidence. See Mohammed H. v. Trump, 786 F. Supp. 3d 1149,
1154 (D. Minn. 2025).
Respondents invoke 8 U.S.C. § 1231 to justify Petitioner’s detention. (Doc. No. 4
at 3.) Section 1231 provides that a noncitizen be detained following an order of removal.
8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(2)(A). A removal order is not completely dissolved upon the
noncitizen’s removal from the United States. If a removed noncitizen is later discovered
to have returned to the United States illegally, the prior removal order is reinstated. Id.
§ 1231(a)(5).
The Form I-213 submitted by Respondents is sufficient proof that Petitioner is
subject to a removal order. An I-213 is generally reliable evidence of citizenship status
and deportability. Rodriguez-Quiroz v. Lynch, 835 F.3d 809, 821 (8th Cir. 2016) (citing
Barcenas, 19 I. & N. Dec. 609, 611 (B.I.A. 1988)). Petitioner did not file a reply
disputing the removal order. Therefore, the Court finds that Petitioner is subject to an
order of removal.
Finally, detention under § 1231 is time-limited. 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1)(A)
(imposing a ninety-day removal period). Petitioner has been in detention for nine days at
present, well within the ninety-day limit. At this time, his detention is not unlawful. See,
e.g., Goaner W. v. Sec’y of Homeland Sec., No. 18-cv-1811, 2019 WL 11648600, at *3
(D. Minn. May 10, 2019) (discussing the time limits imposed by § 1231). The Court
denies the Petition without prejudice.
CASE 0:26-cv-00846-DWF-ECW Doc. 9 Filed 02/06/26 Page 3 of 4

4
ORDER
Based on the foregoing and the record in this case, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED
that Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. [1]) is DENIED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: February 6, 2026 	s/Donovan W. Frank
DONOVAN W. FRANK
United States District Judge
CASE 0:26-cv-00846-DWF-ECW Doc. 9 Filed 02/06/26 Page 4 of 4