Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Ezequiel J.-A.,
Petitioner,
v.
Pamela Bondi, Attorney General, United
States Department of Justice; Kristi
Noem, Secretary, U.S. Department of
Homeland Security; Todd M. Lyons,
Acting Director of Immigration and
Customs Enforcement; and David
Easterwood, Field Office Director, St.
Paul Field Office, U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement,
Respondents.
Civil No. 26-868 (DWF/SGE)
MEMORANDUM
OPINION AND ORDER
INTRODUCTION
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Ezequiel J.-A.’s petition for a writ of
habeas corpus (the “Petition”). (Doc. No. 1.) Respondents filed a response asserting
authority to detain Petitioner under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A). (Doc. No. 5.) For the
reasons set forth below, the Court grants the Petition and orders Respondents to provide
Petitioner with a bond hearing within seven days of the date of this Order.
BACKGROUND
Petitioner is a citizen of Mexico and a resident of Minnesota. (Doc. No. 1 ¶ 2.)
He entered the United States without inspection in 1995. (Id.) He was detained by the
CASE 0:26-cv-00868-DWF-SGE Doc. 8 Filed 02/05/26 Page 1 of 6

2
Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) in 2010 and was released on a $10,000 bond.
(Doc. No. 6-1.) He has a valid work permit. (Doc. No. 1 ¶ 7.)
On January 29, 2026, Petitioner was arrested by U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (“ICE”) while on his way to work. (Id. ¶ 3.) An arrest warrant was issued
that same day. (Doc. No. 6-2.) He was originally arrested in Minnesota. (See id.; Doc.
No. 1 ¶ 14.) He was then transferred to the ICE facility to El Paso, Texas. (Doc. No. 1
¶ 4.) Despite counsel’s attempt to locate Petitioner, the current location of Petitioner is
unknown to counsel.1 (Doc. No. 7 at 3.)
Petitioner filed the Petition on January 30, 2026. (Doc. No. 1 at 22.) Petitioner
asserts that his detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) is unlawful because it violates the
Fourth and Fifth Amendments, and the Immigration and Nationality Act. (Id. ¶¶ 38-69.)
Petitioner also submits that he is a member of the Bond Eligible Class certified in
Maldonado Bautista v. Santacruz, No. 25-cv-1873, 2025 WL 3713987 (C.D. Cal.
Dec. 18, 2025). (Id. ¶ 10.)2 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 21-22.) Also on January 30, 2026, the Court ordered
1 	Respondents do not challenge the Court’s jurisdiction to hear this Petition. (See
Doc. No. 5.) Nonetheless, the Court notes that it has jurisdiction because the current
location of Petitioner is unknown. See Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 450 n.18
(2004) (creating an exception to the district-of-confinement rule for habeas jurisdiction
when the person’s location is unknown).
2 	Because the Court concludes that § 1225(b) does not apply to Petitioner, and
therefore Petitioner is entitled to relief regardless of whether he is a member of the class,
the Court need not address the effect of Maldonado Bautista.
CASE 0:26-cv-00868-DWF-SGE Doc. 8 Filed 02/05/26 Page 2 of 6

3
Respondents to answer the Petition on or before February 2, 2026 at 12:00 p.m. CT.
(Doc. No. 3.) Respondents timely filed a response. (Doc. No. 5.)
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.
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 submitted a response, arguing that Petitioner is subject to mandatory
detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A). (Doc. No. 5.) Respondents summarize the
legal basis for their interpretation of the mandatory detention provision under § 1225 but,
in doing so, do not raise any arguments not already rejected by the Court. As this Court
has explained on multiple occasions, Respondents’ interpretation of § 1225 contradicts
the plain language of the statute. See Jose L.M.S. v. Bondi, No. 26-cv-474, 2026 WL
185066, at *2 (D. Minn. Jan. 25, 2026); Omar E.F.G. v. Bondi, No. 26-cv-451, 2026 WL
184571, at *2 (D. Minn. Jan. 23, 2026); Victor S.M. v. Noem, No. 26-cv-400, 2026 WL
161445, at *2 (D. Minn. Jan. 21, 2026). Section 1225 applies to “applicants for
admission”—noncitizens who are either “present in the United States who ha[ve] not
been admitted or who arrive[] in the United States.” 8 U.S.C. § 1225(a)(1). Section 1226
CASE 0:26-cv-00868-DWF-SGE Doc. 8 Filed 02/05/26 Page 3 of 6

4
applies where § 1225 is inapplicable and provides immigration judges with the discretion
to grant release on bond to noncitizens subject to removal proceedings. See id. § 1226(a).
Here, Petitioner is not an arriving noncitizen because he has been in the United
States for over thirty years. See Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281, 289 (2018) (noting
that § 1226(a) applies to “certain aliens already in the country”). Indeed, DHS applied
§ 1226 to Petitioner during the 2010 removal proceedings, as evidenced by the bond he
was given. See, e.g., Santos M.C. v. Olson, No. 25-cv-4264, 2025 WL 3281787, at *3
(Nov. 25, 2025) (finding that a petitioner was entitled to a bond hearing when the
Government had previously applied § 1226 to that person). Petitioner is subject to the
discretionary bond provisions of § 1226(a), not the mandatory bond provisions of
§ 1225(b)(2).
Having found that Petitioner is being detained unlawfully, the question becomes
the correct remedy. A detainee being held pursuant to § 1226(a) must have been served
an arrest warrant prior to detention. 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a); see also Ahmed M. v. Bondi,
No. 25-cv-4711, 2026 WL 25627, at *3 (D. Minn. Jan. 5, 2026) (collecting cases).
Respondents submitted evidence of an I-200 form, an administrative warrant, which was
served on the day of arrest. It is unclear if that arrest warrant was served prior to
Petitioner’s arrest and initial detention. Because Petitioner has not challenged the timing
of the warrant, the Court will assume that Respondents have followed the proper process
and served Petitioner with the warrant prior to arrest. Thus, Petitioner is not entitled to
immediate release. He is, however, entitled to a bond hearing under § 1226(a), which the
CASE 0:26-cv-00868-DWF-SGE Doc. 8 Filed 02/05/26 Page 4 of 6

5
Court orders Respondents to provide within seven days. If Petitioner is not given a bond
redetermination hearing within that timeframe, Petitioner must be immediately released.
ORDER
Based on the foregoing and the record in this case, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED
that:
1. 	Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. [1]) is
GRANTED.
2. 	The Court DECLARES that Petitioner is not subject to mandatory
detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2), and is instead subject to detention, if at all,
pursuant to the discretionary provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a).
3. 	Respondents are ORDERED to provide Petitioner with a bond
redetermination hearing before an immigration judge in Minnesota under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1226(a) within seven (7) days of the date of this Order.
4. 	If the Government does not provide Petitioner with a bond redetermination
hearing as required by this Order, Respondents must immediately release Petitioner from
detention. In the event that Respondents release Petitioner, they must do so: (1) in
Minnesota; (2) with all personal documents and belongings, such as his driver’s license,
passport, other immigration documents, and cell phone; (3) without conditions such as
ankle monitors or tracking devices; and (4) with all clothing and outerwear he was
wearing at the time of detention, or other proper winter attire. In addition, Respondents
shall provide reasonable advance notice to counsel to arrange for a safe release of
Petitioner.
CASE 0:26-cv-00868-DWF-SGE Doc. 8 Filed 02/05/26 Page 5 of 6

6
5. 	Within ten (10) days of the date of this Order, Respondents shall provide
the Court with a status update concerning the results of any bond hearing conducted
pursuant to this Order, or if no bond hearing was held, advise the Court regarding
Petitioner’s release.
6. 	Respondents, or anyone acting in concert with Respondents, are
ENJOINED from removing, transferring, or otherwise facilitating the removal of
Petitioner from the District of Minnesota prior to the ordered bond hearing.
7. 	Within thirty (30) days of final judgment in this action, Petitioner may
move to recover attorneys’ fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: February 5, 2026 	s/Donovan W. Frank
DONOVAN W. FRANK
United States District Judge
CASE 0:26-cv-00868-DWF-SGE Doc. 8 Filed 02/05/26 Page 6 of 6