Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Karen Venice Bryan, KB LAW PLLC, 4100 Excelsior Boulevard, St. Louis Park,
MN 55416, for Petitioner.
Ana H. Voss, Jesus Cruz Rodriguez, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE,
300 	South 	Fourth 	Street, 	Suite 	600, 	Minneapolis, 	MN 	55415 	for
Respondents.
MERVIS E.A.M.
Petitioner,
v.
KRISTI NOEM, Secretary, U.S. Department
of Homeland Security;
TODD M. LYONS, Acting Director, St. Paul
Field Office, Immigration and Customs
Enforcement;
DAVID EASTERWOOD, Director, St. Paul
Field Office, U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement;
MELISSA B. HARPER, Director, New
Orleans Field Office, Immigration and
Customs Enforcement; and
WARDEN OF ADAMS COUNTY
CORRECTIONAL CENTER, Custodian of
detainees at the Adams County
Correctional Center,
Respondents.
Civil No. 26-861 (JRT/DTS)
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
GRANTING PETITION FOR WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS
CASE 0:26-cv-00861-JRT-DTS Doc. 8 Filed 02/06/26 Page 1 of 6

-2-
Petitioner Mervis E.A.M. is Venezuelan citizen and a Minnesota resident. (Pet. for
Writ of Habeas Corpus ¶¶ 1, 5, Jan. 30, 2026, Docket No. 2.) Petitioner was admitted to
the United States under the Venezuelan Humanitarian Parole program on October 13,
2023, which was valid through October 11, 2025. (Id. ¶¶ 30–31.) On October 13, 2024,
Petitioner filed an asylum application. (Id. ¶ 32.) Petitioner has a valid work permit and
no criminal history. (Id. ¶ 4.)
Petitioner was arrested and detained by United States Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (“ICE”) on January 5, 2026. 	(Id. ¶ 19.) 	He was then transferred to a
detention facility in El Paso Texas. (Id.) On January 14, 2026, Petitioner was transferred
again, this time to Adams County Correctional Center in Natchez, Mississippi. 	(Id.)
Petitioner is now detained at the Kandiyohi County jail in Willmar, Minnesota. (Resp. at
2, Feb. 2, 2026, Docket No. 6.)
On January 30, 2026, Mervis E.A.M. filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus,
alleging that his continued detention is unlawful and requesting that the Court order his
immediate release, or alternatively, a bond hearing. (Pet. ¶¶ 51–64.) That same day, the
Court issued an order (1) enjoining Respondents from transferring Mervis E.A.M. outside
the District of Minnesota pending a ruling on his habeas petition, and (2) directing
Respondents to file an answer by February 2, 2026. 	(Docket No. 4.) The Respondents
answered the Petition, (Docket No. 6), and Petitioner replied (Docket No. 7).
CASE 0:26-cv-00861-JRT-DTS Doc. 8 Filed 02/06/26 Page 2 of 6

-3-
DISCUSSION
Respondents argue Mervis E.A.M. is an “arriving alien” by virtue of his asylum
application and thus subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1)(B)(ii).
(Resp. at 2.) The subsection on which Respondents rely, § 1225(b)(1)(B)(ii), provides that
“[i]f the [immigration] officer determines at the time of the interview that an alien has a
credible fear of persecution,” then “the alien shall be detained for further consideration
of 	the 	application 	for 	asylum.” 	8 	U.S.C. 	§ 	1225(b)(1)(B)(ii) 	(emphasis 	added).
Respondents contend § 1225(b)(1)(B)(ii) mandates Petitioner’s detention because he has
applied for asylum. The Court disagrees for two reasons.
First, the record does not reflect that a credible fear interview ever occurred.
Absent such an interview, Petitioner cannot be detained because the interview is a
condition precedent to any subsequent detention, as § 1225(b)(1)(B)(ii) conditions
detention on the occurrence of that interview by using the word “if.” See Citizen Ins. Co.
of Am. v. Assessment Sys. Corp., Civ. No. 18-1762, 2019 WL 4014955, at *7 (D. Minn. Aug.
26, 2029) (noting that the word “if” can create a condition precedent). Second, for the
reasons set forth in Abdirashid H. M., § 1225(b)(1)(B)(ii) does not mandate detention of
individuals seeking asylum who have been present in the United States for years, as the
Petitioner has here. See Abdirashid H. M. v. Noem, Civ. No. 25-4779, 2026 WL 127698, at
*3 (D. Minn. Jan. 9, 2026) (“[T]he Court concludes that § 1225(b)(1)(B)(ii), which provides
for the initial mandatory detention of noncitizens subject to § 1225(b)(1) who are found
to have a credible fear of persecution in their home country, does not authorize the
CASE 0:26-cv-00861-JRT-DTS Doc. 8 Filed 02/06/26 Page 3 of 6

-4-
mandatory detention of that noncitizen once they have been paroled into the country
and released.”).1
The Court therefore turns to the proper remedy. In some 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)
or § 1225(b)(1)(B)(ii); 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.”).
The Court will grant Mervis E.A.M.’s petition for writ of habeas corpus and order
that he be released from custody.
1 Respondents also argue the Petitioner’s detention is justified under § 1225(b)(2)
because Petitioner applied for asylum. (Resp. at 6.) But, as other courts have recognized, the
filing of an asylum application does not subject detainees, including Petitioner, to detention
under § 1225(b)(2). See, e.g., Yao v. Almodovar, Civ. No. 25-9982, 2025 WL 3653433, at *9
(S.D.N.Y. Dec. 17, 2025) (concluding that filing an asylum application does not render a noncitizen
“seeking admission” under § 1225(b)(2)(A)); Gabriel J. v. Bondi, Civ. No. 26-865, 2026 WL 295192,
at *2–3 (D. Minn. Feb. 4, 2026); Pacheco-Acosta v. Olson, Civ. No. 25-186, 2025 WL 3542128, at
*5 (E.D. Ky. Dec. 10, 2025) (collecting cases).
CASE 0:26-cv-00861-JRT-DTS Doc. 8 Filed 02/06/26 Page 4 of 6

-5-
ORDER
Based on the foregoing, and all the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. 	Petitioner Mervis E.A.M.’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Docket No. [2]) is
GRANTED, as follows:
a. 	Petitioner is not subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b).
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 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 	license, 	passports, 	or 	immigration 	documents, 	and 	without
conditions such as location tracking devices.
CASE 0:26-cv-00861-JRT-DTS Doc. 8 Filed 02/06/26 Page 5 of 6

-6-
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 9,
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 6, 2026 	_____/s/ John R. Tunheim ____
at Minneapolis, Minnesota. 	JOHN R. TUNHEIM
United States District Judge
CASE 0:26-cv-00861-JRT-DTS Doc. 8 Filed 02/06/26 Page 6 of 6