Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Luis E.V.V.,
Petitioner,
v.
Todd Lyons, in his capacity as Acting
Director, Immigration and Customs
Enforcement; Kristi Noem, Secretary,
U.S. Department of Homeland Security;
Pamela Bondi, U.S. Attorney General;
David Easterwood, Field Office Director
of St. Paul Field Office for U.S.
Department of Homeland Security, United
States Immigration and Customs
Enforcement, Enforcement and Removal
Operations; and Daren Margolin,
Executive Office for Immigration Review,
Respondents.
Civil No. 26-898 (DWF/EMB)
MEMORANDUM
OPINION AND ORDER
INTRODUCTION
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Luis E.V.V.’s petition for a writ of
habeas corpus (the “Petition”). (Doc. No. 1.) Respondents filed a form response
asserting authority to detain Petitioner under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A). (Doc. No. 4.)
For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants the Petition and orders Respondents to
release Petitioner immediately.
BACKGROUND
Petitioner is a citizen of Ecuador and a resident of Minneapolis, Minnesota. (Doc.
No. 1 at 2, 5, 13.) He has resided in the United States since August 2023. (Id. at 2, 13.)
CASE 0:26-cv-00898-DWF-EMB Doc. 6 Filed 02/03/26 Page 1 of 5

2
He lives in Minneapolis with his partner, who is seven months pregnant with their second
child, and his five-year old daughter. (Id. at 13.) Petitioner entered the United States on
August 9, 2023 without inspection. (Id. at 13; Doc. No. 1-1 at 3.) He was released on
recognizance on August 10, 2023, and placed into removal proceedings. (Doc. No. 1
at 2, 13; Doc. No. 1-1 at 3, 5-6.) On September 19, 2025, Petitioner submitted an asylum
application. (Doc. No. 1 at 14; Doc. No. 1-1 at 8.)
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents arrested Petitioner on
January 30, 2026. (Doc. No. 1 at 2, 14.) Petitioner is being detained at Fort Snelling in
Minnesota. (Id. at 2, 4, 14.)
Petitioner filed the Petition on January 30, 2026. (Id. at 19.) 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 and the Immigration and Nationality Act. (Id. at 17-18.)
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. at 11.)1 Petitioner requests, among other things, immediate release
from detention or an order requiring Respondents to provide him with a bond hearing
under 8 U.S.C. § 1226 within seven days. (Id. at 18.) 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
1 	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-00898-DWF-EMB Doc. 6 Filed 02/03/26 Page 2 of 5

3
pending further order. (Doc. No. 3.) Respondents timely filed a form response. (Doc.
No. 4.)
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 form response, arguing that Petitioner is subject to
mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A), and pointing the Court to their
arguments in a pending Eighth Circuit case: Avila v. Bondi, No. 25-3248. (See Doc.
No. 4.) 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 applies where § 1225 is inapplicable and provides
CASE 0:26-cv-00898-DWF-EMB Doc. 6 Filed 02/03/26 Page 3 of 5

4
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 two years. See Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281, 289 (2018) (noting
that § 1226(a) applies to “certain aliens already in the country”). Petitioner is therefore
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), as Petitioner is here,
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). There is no evidence that Respondents had a warrant to arrest
Petitioner. And after being given the opportunity to explain the true cause of Petitioner’s
detention and provide documents of such (see Doc. No. 3), Respondents did not do so,
(see Doc. No. 4). The Court therefore concludes that Petitioner was arrested without a
warrant. The remedy for a warrantless arrest is immediate release. 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.” (citation
omitted)).
ORDER
Based on the foregoing and the record in this case, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED
that:
CASE 0:26-cv-00898-DWF-EMB Doc. 6 Filed 02/03/26 Page 4 of 5

5
1. 	Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. [1]) is
GRANTED.
2. 	The Court DECLARES that Petitioner’s current detention is unlawful
under the Constitution and laws of the United States.
3. 	Respondents are ORDERED to release Petitioner from custody
immediately.
4. 	Within three (3) days of the date of this Order, the Government shall
provide the Court with a status update confirming Petitioner’s release.
5. 	Respondents are directed to release Petitioner: (1) in Minnesota; (2) with
all personal documents and belongings, such as his driver’s license, work permit,
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.
6. 	Respondents are ENJOINED from re-detaining Petitioner under this same
statutory theory, absent materially changed circumstances.
7. 	Within thirty (30) days of final judgment in this action, Petitioner may
move to recover attorneys’ fees and costs.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: February 3, 2026 	s/Donovan W. Frank
DONOVAN W. FRANK
United States District Judge
CASE 0:26-cv-00898-DWF-EMB Doc. 6 Filed 02/03/26 Page 5 of 5