Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Manuel I.,
Petitioner,
v.
Pamela Bondi, Attorney General;
Kristi Noem, Secretary, U.S. Department
of Homeland Security; Todd M. Lyons,
Acting Director of Immigration and
Customs Enforcement; David Easterwood,
Acting Director, St. Paul Field Office
Immigration and Customs Enforcement;
Joel Brott, Sheriff of Sherburne County
Jail,
Respondents.
Case No. 26-CV-1933 (SRN/DLM)
ORDER
Jason L Schellack, A utism Advocacy & Law Center, LLC, 901 N. 3rd St., Ste. 120,
Minneapolis, MN 55401, for Petitioner
David W. Fuller and Jesus Cruz Rodriguez, U.S. Attorney’s Office, 300 S. 4th St.,
Minneapolis, MN 55415, for Respondents
SUSAN RICHARD NELSON, United States District Judge
Before the Court is the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”) [Doc. No.
1] filed by Petitioner Manuel I. 	Petitioner seeks immediate release from detention, or a
prompt bond hearing in Immigration Court. 	Respondents oppose the Petition. (Resp’ts’
Opp’n [Doc. No. 5].)
CASE 0:26-cv-01933-SRN-DLM Doc. 7 Filed 03/22/26 Page 1 of 7

2
The Court has taken the Petition under advisement on the papers. For the reasons
set 	forth 	below, 	the 	Petition 	is 	granted 	and 	Respondents 	shall 	release 	Petitioner
immediately.
I. 	BACKGROUND
Manuel I. is a resident of Columbia Heights, Minnesota, and a citizen of Ecuador
who has lived in the United States since 2022. 	(Pet. ¶¶ 7, 13.) 	He alleges that he is not
subject to a final order of removal. (Id. ¶ 14.)
On March 17, 2026, agents with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
(“ICE”) arrested Manuel I. 	(Id. ¶ 16.) He alleges that his arrest was without a warrant.
(Id.) He is being held in detention at the Sherburne County Jail in Elk River, Minnesota.
(Id.)
Petitioner filed the instant Petition on March 18, 2026, asserting that he is entitled
to immediate release, or, alternatively, a bond hearing. (Id. at 18–19.)
In 	the 	Court’s 	March 	19, 	2026 	Order 	to 	Show 	Cause, 	the 	Court 	enjoined
Respondents from moving Petitioner out of Minnesota until further order of the court, and,
to the extent he was released, likewise required Petitioner to remain in Minnesota while his
Petition is pending. (OSC [Doc. No. 3] ¶¶ 4–5.) The Court also ordered Respondents to
show cause for the “true cause and proper duration of Petitioner’s confinement,” supported
by “[s]uch affidavits and exhibits as are needed to establish the lawfulness . . . of
Petitioner’s detention,” and further directed Respondents to address “[w]hether the absence
of a warrant preceding Petitioner’s arrest necessitates Petitioner’s immediate release.” (Id.
¶¶ 1, 2(a), (e).) 	Additionally, the Court required Respondents to distinguish the instant
CASE 0:26-cv-01933-SRN-DLM Doc. 7 Filed 03/22/26 Page 2 of 7

3
Petition from the Court’s prior rulings in Maldonado v. Olson, 795 F. Supp. 3d 1134 (D.
Minn. 2025), and E.M. v. Noem, No. 25-cv-3975 (SRN/DTS), 2025 WL 3157839 (D. Minn.
Nov. 12, 2025). (Id. ¶ 2(d).)
In their March 23, 2026 two-paragraph Response, Respondents argue that Petitioner
is subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) and is therefore not entitled
to release. (Resp’ts’ Response at 1.) Respondents’ position regarding the applicability of
§ 1225(b)(2) is consistent with interim guidance from DHS/ICE, and a decision from the
Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) finding that all persons who enter the United States
without inspection, including those who have been residing here for some time, are
“applicants for admission” under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(a), subject to mandatory detention, rather
than discretionary detention under § 1226(a). Maldonado, 795 F. Supp. 3d at 1150 (noting
interim 	guidance); 	Matter 	of 	Yajure 	Hurtado, 	29 	I. 	& 	N. 	Dec. 	216 	(BIA 	2025).
Respondents invoke their prior positions, as set forth in Avila v. Bondi, No. 25-3248 (8th
Cir. Nov. 10, 2025), currently pending before the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.
(Resp’ts’ Opp’n at 1–2.) 	In their Response to the Petition, Respondents failed to
distinguish the instant Petition from the Court’s prior rulings in Maldonado, 795 F. Supp.
3d 1134, and E.M., 2025 WL 3157839, and failed to address whether a warrant was issued
for Petitioner’s arrest.
In Petitioner’s Reply [Doc. No. 6], he reiterates his request for immediate release,
noting that Respondents did not dispute that ICE failed to possess or present a warrant for
his arrest, nor did they address whether the absence of a warrant necessitates his immediate
release.
CASE 0:26-cv-01933-SRN-DLM Doc. 7 Filed 03/22/26 Page 3 of 7

4
II. 	DISCUSSION
A. Section 1226 Applies
While the parties dispute whether 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) or § 1226(a) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) applies to a noncitizen who is already residing
in the United States, there is no dispute that Petitioner was arrested while already residing
in the United States.1
This Court has previously found, along with the vast majority of district courts
throughout the country, that the applicable detention scheme for noncitizens already
residing in the country is under § 1226(a), absent any exceptions under § 1226(c).
Maldonado, 795 F. Supp. 3d at 1150–52, E.M., 2025 WL 3157839, at *4–8; see also
Demirel v. Fed. Detention Ctr., No. 25-5488, 2025 WL 3218243, at *4 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 18,
2025) (collecting cases). 	By contrast, § 1225(b)(2) applies to noncitizens at or near the
border. Alvarez Ortiz v. Freden, 808 F. Supp. 3d 579, 595 (W.D.N.Y. 2025). To date, two
federal courts of appeals have ruled on this issue, 	reaching 	opposite conclusions.
Castañon-Nava v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 161 F.4th 1048, 1062 (7th Cir. 2025)
(concluding that respondent was not likely to prevail on the merits that petitioner was
subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)); Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, 166
F.4th 494 (5th Cir. 2026) (finding petitioner was subject to mandatory detention under §
1225(b)(2)). Respondents do not assert that any of the exceptions under § 1226(c) apply.
1 For the reasons stated in prior decisions, see, e.g., Maldonado, 795 F. Supp. 3d at 1142–
47, the Court finds that it possesses subject matter jurisdiction to consider the Petition.
Respondents present no argument to the contrary.
CASE 0:26-cv-01933-SRN-DLM Doc. 7 Filed 03/22/26 Page 4 of 7

5
The 	Court 	remains 	unpersuaded 	by 	Respondents’ 	statutory 	interpretation 	of 	§§
1225(b)(2)(A), but notes that Respondents’ arguments are preserved for appeal.
B. Appropriate Remedy
Having determined that § 1225(b) is inapplicable to Petitioner, who otherwise falls
under § 1226(a), the Court turns to the appropriate remedy. Section 1226(a) provides that
“[o]n a warrant issued by the Attorney General, an alien may be arrested and detained
pending a decision on whether the alien is to be removed from the United States.” 8 U.S.C.
§ 1226(a) (emphasis added). The statute requires the issuance of a warrant as a precursor
to detention under § 1226(a). Ahmed M. v. Bondi, No. 25-cv-4711 (ECT/SGE), 2026 WL
25627, at *3 (D. Minn. Jan. 5, 2026) (citing Chogllo Chafla v. Scott, 804 F. Supp. 3d 247
(D. Me. 2025), appeal filed (Nov. 7, 2025); J.A.C.P. v. Wofford, No. 1:25-cv-01354-KES-
SKO (HC), 2025 WL 3013328, at *8 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 27, 2025)). “[I]t follows that absent
a warrant a noncitizen may not be arrested and detained under section 1226(a).” Chogllo
Chafla, 804 F. Supp. 3d at 264 (emphasis in original).
Petitioner 	alleges 	he 	was 	arrested 	and 	detained 	without 	a 	warrant 	and 	that
Respondents have failed to produce a warrant. (Pet. ¶ 16.) Although the Court’s Order to
Show Cause required Respondents to address “[w]hether the absence of a warrant
preceding Petitioner’s arrest necessitates Petitioner’s immediate release” and to support
their position with “[s]uch affidavits and exhibits as are needed to establish the lawfulness
. . . of Petitioner’s detention,” (OSC ¶ 2(a), (e)), Respondents have failed to produce, much
less address, § 1226(a)’s warrant requirement here. 	Nor have they produced any other
documentation supporting Petitioner’s detention.
CASE 0:26-cv-01933-SRN-DLM Doc. 7 Filed 03/22/26 Page 5 of 7

6
As other judges in this District have found, the appropriate remedy for detention
that lacks a proper statutory basis under § 1226(a) is release. Ahmed M., 2026 WL 25627,
at *3 (finding release the appropriate remedy where Respondents did not produce a
warrant); Juan S.R. v. Bondi, No. 26-cv-0005 (PJS/LIB) (D. Minn. Jan. 12, 2026) [Doc.
No. 8 at 3–4] (following the reasoning of Ahmed M. and ordering immediate release where
Respondents failed to present evidence of a warrant); Vedat C. v. Bondi, No. 25-cv-4642
(JWB/DTS) (D. Minn. Dec. 19, 2025) [Doc. No. 9 at 6] (“[A] bond hearing presupposes
lawful detention authority under § 1226. 	Where that authority has not been invoked or
established, ordering a bond hearing would treat the absence of statutory power as a mere
procedural irregularity rather than a substantive defect.”). “Habeas relief . . . addresses the
lawfulness of custody itself,” and “[f]or detention that lacks a lawful predicate, release is
an available and appropriate remedy.” 	Id. Accordingly, Respondents shall immediately
release Petitioner from custody.
Accordingly, the Court grants Petitioner’s request for release, as set forth below.
III. 	ORDER
Based on the submissions and the entire file and proceedings herein, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED that
1. 	Petitioner Manuel I.’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus [Doc. No. 1] is
GRANTED, as follows:
2. 	Respondents shall release Petitioner from custody immediately, but no later than
within 48 hours.
3. 	Prior to Petitioner’s release, Respondents must first notify Petitioner’s legal
counsel, 	Jason 	L 	Schellack 	(612-200-9920, 	jason@autismlawcenter.com),
within two hours of his impending release, and include the location of his release
CASE 0:26-cv-01933-SRN-DLM Doc. 7 Filed 03/22/26 Page 6 of 7

7
and 	approximate 	release 	time, 	so 	that 	Petitioner’s 	counsel 	may 	make
transportation 	arrangements 	and 	Petitioner’s 	counsel 	may 	notify 	family
members.
4. 	Upon release, Respondents shall return to Petitioner all of his identifying
documents, immigration documents, paperwork of any kind, his cell phone, and
any other personal belongings, including clothing and jewelry.
5. 	Respondents may not administratively recharacterize the release granted by this
Order as grounds to impose conditions or re-impose existing conditions in
conjunction 	with 	release 	(including 	release 	on 	recognizance 	or 	similar
instruments), without prior notice to and authorization from the Court, or absent
a new and independently lawful custody decision properly executed under the
law.
6. 	Respondents shall confirm Petitioner’s release within 48 hours from the date of
this Order by filing a document on CM/ECF. This confirmation shall include a
copy of conditions of release, if applicable and subject to the requirements set
forth in paragraph 5, above.
7. 	Respondents may not re-detain Petitioner under a statutory theory this Court has
rejected in this proceeding absent materially changed circumstances.
Dated: March 22, 2026 	s/Susan Richard Nelson
SUSAN RICHARD NELSON
United States District Judge
CASE 0:26-cv-01933-SRN-DLM Doc. 7 Filed 03/22/26 Page 7 of 7