Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
JUAN C.A.T.,
Petitioner,
v.
PAMELA BONDI, United States Attorney
General;
KRISTI NOEM, Secretary, U.S. Department
of Homeland Security;
TODD 	LYONS, 	Acting 	Director,
Immigration and Customs Enforcement;
DAVID EASTERWOOD, Acting Director, St.
Paul Field Office, U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement; and
ERIC 	TOLLEFSON, 	Sheriff 	of 	Kandiyohi
County,
Respondents.
Civil No. 26-1620 (JRT/DLM)
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
GRANTING PETITION FOR WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS
Lyndsey M. Marcelino Schalkwyk, MARCELINO & KIM PC, 400 South Fourth
Street, Suite 410, Minneapolis, MN 55415, for Petitioner.
David W. Fuller, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, 300 South Fourth
Street, Suite 600, Minneapolis, MN 55415 for Respondents.
Petitioner Juan C.A.T. was detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
(“ICE”) officials on February 24, 2026. (Verified Pet. for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Pet.”) ¶
CASE 0:26-cv-01620-JRT-DLM Doc. 6 Filed 03/03/26 Page 1 of 4

- 2 -
4, Feb. 24, 2026, Docket No. 1.) 	That same day, 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 is a resident of Minnesota and citizen of Ecuador. (Pet. ¶ 8.) Petitioner
was arrested by federal officials on February 24, 2026, and is currently detained in
Minnesota. (Id. ¶¶ 4,8.)
Respondents rely on 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) to justify Petitioner’s detention. 	The
Court rejects that argument. To the extent Respondents rely on § 1225(b)(2), 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) and 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.
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)(2) 	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,
CASE 0:26-cv-01620-JRT-DLM Doc. 6 Filed 03/03/26 Page 2 of 4

- 3 -
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 Petitioner Juan C.A.T.’s petition for writ of habeas corpus and
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 Juan C.A.T.’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)(2).
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-01620-JRT-DLM Doc. 6 Filed 03/03/26 Page 3 of 4

- 4 -
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 March 6, 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: March 3, 2026 	_____/s/ John R. Tunheim ____
at Minneapolis, Minnesota. 	JOHN R. TUNHEIM
United States District Judge
CASE 0:26-cv-01620-JRT-DLM Doc. 6 Filed 03/03/26 Page 4 of 4