Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
OSCAR R. R. G.,
Petitioner,
v.
PAMELA BONDI, United States Attorney
General;
KRISTI NOEM, Secretary, U.S. Department
of Homeland Security;
TODD 	M. 	LYONS, 	Acting 	Director,
Immigration and Customs Enforcement;
and
DAVID EASTERWOOD, Acting Director, St.
Paul Field Office, U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement,
Respondents.
Civil No. 26-1204 (JRT/SGE)
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
GRANTING PETITION FOR WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS
Taylor Jon Volkman, TAYLOR VOLKMAN, ESQ., Post Office Box 7040,
Minneapolis, MN 55407, for Petitioner.
David W. Fuller and Trevor Brown, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE,
300 	South 	Fourth 	Street, 	Suite 	600, 	Minneapolis, 	MN 	55415, 	for
Respondents.
Petitioner 	Oscar 	R. R. G. 	was 	detained 	by 	U.S. 	Immigration 	and 	Customs
Enforcement (“ICE”) officials on February 7, 2026, while doing construction work.
(Verified Pet. for Writ of Habeas Corpus ¶ 17, Feb. 7, 2026, Docket No. 1.) The same day,
CASE 0:26-cv-01204-JRT-SGE Doc. 6 Filed 02/13/26 Page 1 of 5

- 2 -
Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, challenging the lawfulness of his
detention. (Id.) Because the Court concludes that Petitioner is being detained unlawfully,
the Court will grant the petition and order Petitioner’s immediate release.
DISCUSSION
Petitioner Oscar R. R. G. is a citizen of Nicaragua and a resident of Minnesota. (Id..
¶ 9.) He has lived in the United States for more than fifteen years and is not subject to a
final order for removal. (Id. ¶ 14.) Petitioner is currently detained in Minnesota. (Id. ¶ 2.)
Respondents rely on 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b) to justify Petitioner’s detention. 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 Avila v. Bondi, Civ. No. 25-3741, 2025 WL
2976539 (D. Minn. Oct. 21, 2025); Romero Santuario v. Bondi, Civ. 25-4296, 2025 WL
3469577 (D. Minn, Dec. 2, 2025). Section 1225(b)(2) does not authorize the mandatory
detention of an individual already present in the United States.
Respondents have provided the Court with an administrative warrant dated
February 7, 2026, and contend that “if the Court determines Petitioner is detained under
§ 1226(a) and not under § 1225(b)(2), then the appropriate remedy is to order a custody
redetermination hearing instead of immediate release.” 	(Resp. at 1–2, Feb. 10, 2026,
Docket No. 5.)
CASE 0:26-cv-01204-JRT-SGE Doc. 6 Filed 02/13/26 Page 2 of 5

- 3 -
The warrant, however, was either issued in the field or after Petitioner was
arrested and detained.1 (Resp., Ex. 1.) Although the I-200 form is dated the same day as
the Petitioner’s detention, it indicates that the same officer both authorized and executed
the warrant. (Id.) The Court is persuaded by the reasoning Castanon Nava v. Department
of Homeland Security, that ICE lacks statutory and regulatory authority to engage in a
policy of issuing I-200 warrants to collaterals in the field without the concurrent or prior
issuance of a notice to appear (NTA). Civ. No. 18-3757, 2025 WL 2842146, at *17 (N.D.
Ill. Oct. 7, 2025). Because Respondents have not provided a corresponding NTA, the Court
concludes that this warrant is not valid.
It is clear to the Court from Respondents’ filings that they continue to assert legal
authority to detain Petitioner under § 1225, not § 1226. And as explained above, § 1225
is not a lawful basis for mandatory detention in this case.
The Court therefore turns to the proper remedy. Where, as here, (1) Respondents
erroneously 	assert 	that 	a 	detainee 	is 	being 	held 	pursuant 	to 	§ 	1225(b) 	and
(2) Respondents have not produced a valid warrant 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
1 Respondents do not provide an accompanying declaration explaining the basis for the
warrant, attesting to its validity, or identifying the officers who issued and obtained it.
CASE 0:26-cv-01204-JRT-SGE Doc. 6 Filed 02/13/26 Page 3 of 5

- 4 -
(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 Oscar R. R. G.’s petition for writ of habeas corpus and will
order that he be released from custody.
ORDER
Based on the foregoing, and all the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. 	Petitioner Oscar R. R. G.’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).
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
CASE 0:26-cv-01204-JRT-SGE Doc. 6 Filed 02/13/26 Page 4 of 5

- 5 -
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.
f. 	Respondents are ENJOINED from re-detaining Petitioner under this same
statutory theory, absent materially changed circumstances.
g. 	Both 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 16,
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 13, 2026
at Minneapolis, Minnesota. 	JOHN R. TUNHEIM
Time: 10:40 a.m. 	United States District Judge
CASE 0:26-cv-01204-JRT-SGE Doc. 6 Filed 02/13/26 Page 5 of 5