Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Liban G.,
Petitioner,
v.
Kristi Noem, Secretary, U.S. Department of
Homeland Security; Todd M. Lyons, Acting
Director, U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement; and David Easterwood, Acting
Director, St. Paul Field Office, Immigration
and Customs Enforcement ,
Respondents.
No. 26-CV-0301 (SRN/ECW)
ORDER
Abdulwahid Osman, Abdulwahid Law Firm PLLC, 2929 Chicago Ave., Ste. 110,
Minneapolis, MN 55407, and Robin Chandler Carr, Law Office of Robin Carr, 2929
Chicago Ave., Ste. 110, Minneapolis, MN 55407, for Petitioner
Ana Voss and Justin Merak Page, 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 Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”) [Doc. No. 1]
filed by Petitioner Liban G., who seeks immediate release from detention or, in the
alternative, an opportunity for a bond hearing. Respondents oppose the Petition. (Resp’ts’
Opp’n [Doc. No. 10].)
The Court has taken the Petition under advisement on the papers. For the reasons
set forth below, the Petition is granted and the Court orders Liban G. to be released
immediately.
CASE 0:26-cv-00301-SRN-ECW Doc. 18 Filed 01/23/26 Page 1 of 13

2
I. 	BACKGROUND
Petitioner is a citizen of Somalia who entered the United States as a refugee on
September 5, 2023. (Pet. [Doc. No. 1] ¶ 14 & Pet’r’s Ex. 1.) 	His application for lawful
permanent resident status is pending with United States Citizenship and Immigration
Services (“USCIS”), which issued a notice of receipt on September 20, 2024. (Pet’r’s Ex.
2.) On January 14, 2026, ICE agents arrested Petitioner in the parking lot of his place of
employment in Shakopee, Minnesota. 	(Pet. ¶ 2.) 	He was arrested as part of Operation
PARRIS 	[Post-Admission 	Refugee 	Reverification 	and 	Integrity 	Strengthening] 	in
Minnesota, “a sweeping initiative reexamining thousands of refugee cases through new
background checks and intensive verification of refugee claims.” (Pet’r’s Ex. 3.)
That same day, Petitioner filed the instant Petition seeking immediate release, or in
the alternative, the opportunity for a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) before an
Immigration Judge. (Pet. at 6–7.) In addition, he requested an order enjoining Respondents
from transferring him outside the District of Minnesota. (Id. at 6.)
The following day, January 15, 2026, this Court issued an Order to Show Cause
directing Respondents to respond to the Petition and temporarily enjoining them from
transferring Petitioner out of the District of Minnesota or deporting him until the Court
rules on the pending Petition. (Order to Show Cause [Doc. No. 5] at 1–2.)
On January 16, 2026, Petitioner informed his family that he was transferred outside
the District of Minnesota and was detained in ICE custody at the Department of Homeland
Security (“DHS”)’s El Paso Camp East Montana detention facility. (Pet’r’s TRO Mot. at
CASE 0:26-cv-00301-SRN-ECW Doc. 18 Filed 01/23/26 Page 2 of 13

3
2.) He requested that Respondents return him to Minnesota and immediately release him
upon his return. (Id.)
On January 16, 2026, at 5:26 p.m., the Court granted Petitioner’s Motion for a TRO
and ordered Respondents to return Petitioner to the District of Minnesota within 48 hours,
i.e., January 18, 2026, at 5:26 p.m. (TRO [Doc. No. 8] at 6.) Upon his return, Respondents
were ordered to either release Petitioner or detain him in the District of Minnesota while
his Habeas Petition remains pending. (Id.) The Court also ordered Respondents to notify
the Court of Petitioner’s return to Minnesota within 24 hours of his return. (Id.)
As to Respondent’s compliance with the TRO, on January 19, 2026, Respondents
stated that they “immediately took steps to accomplish [Petitioner’s] return” and that he
“will be placed on the next available flight back to Minnesota.” (Resp’ts’ TRO Response
[Doc. No. 10] at 2 n.1.) After Respondents did not report Petitioner’s return to Minnesota
the following day, the Court entered the following text-only order on January 20, 2026:
(Text-Only) ORDER FOR PARTY TO FILE DOCUMENT/RESPOND TO
COURT. Starting today, Respondents shall update the Court daily, no later
than 5:00 pm, on the status of transporting Petitioner back to Minnesota. The
Court ordered Respondents to return Petitioner to Minnesota no later than
5:26 p.m. CST on January 18, 2026. Respondents have far exceeded that
deadline.
(Jan. 20, 2026 Text-Only Order [Doc. No. 11].)
On January 20, 2026, at 4:46 p.m., counsel for Respondents filed an update, stating,
“Respondents informed me that Petitioner was supposed to be on a flight today from Texas
to Minnesota. Unfortunately, Petitioner was not put on the flight in Texas. I am following
CASE 0:26-cv-00301-SRN-ECW Doc. 18 Filed 01/23/26 Page 3 of 13

4
up to find out the next flight available for Petitioner.” (Resp’ts’ Jan. 20, 2026 Ltr. [Doc.
No. 12].)
On January 21, 2026, at 3:16 p.m., counsel for Respondents filed another update,
stating, “Respondents have informed me that Petitioner will be placed on a flight to
Minnesota tomorrow. I will inform the Court once Petitioner arrives in Minnesota.”
(Resp’ts’ Jan. 21, 2026 Ltr. [Doc. No. 14].)
On January 22, 2026, Respondents failed to provide the Court with an update by
5:00 p.m., as required. 	Consequently, at 7:47 p.m., the Court entered an order to show
cause why the Government should not be held in contempt of court. (Jan. 22, 2026 OSC
[Doc. No. 15] ¶ 1].) The Court recounted Respondents’ three violations of orders of this
Court: 	(1) the January 15, 2025 Order to Show Cause [Doc. No. 5] that Respondents
violated by moving Petitioner out of the District of Minnesota; (2) the January 16, 2026
TRO [Doc. No. 8] that Respondents violated by failing to return Petitioner to Minnesota
no later than 5:26 p.m. on January 18, 2026; and (3) the January 20, 2026 Text-Only Order
that Respondents violated on January 22, 2026 by failing to provide a daily update, no later
than 5 p.m., on the status of transporting Petitioner back to Minnesota. (Jan. 22, 2026 OSC
¶¶ 3–5.) 	Accordingly, the Court scheduled a show cause video hearing for January 23,
2026 at 2:00 p.m. on the issue of holding Respondents in contempt of court. (Id. ¶ 1.) At
the hearing, the Court ordered the attendance of Respondents’ counsel of record, Ms. Voss
and Mr. Page; the ICE Officer in Texas responsible for Petitioner’s return to Minnesota;
and one or both of Petitioner’s counsel. (Id. ¶ 6.)
CASE 0:26-cv-00301-SRN-ECW Doc. 18 Filed 01/23/26 Page 4 of 13

5
Approximately three hours later, at 10:36 p.m. on January 22, 2026, Respondents’
counsel, Mr. Page, filed a letter to the Court, stating, “At 4:18 p.m. and at 9:28 p.m. I
emailed ICE asking for an update on whether Petitioner was on a flight today to Minnesota.
I have not received a response to my emails.” (Jan. 22, 2026 Letter [Doc. No. 16].)
Today, January 23, 2026, at 8:47 a.m., Mr. Page filed another letter, stating, “At
11:31 p.m. last night, Laura Trosen, ICE’s Deputy Chief Counsel, e-mailed and informed
me that Petitioner was returned to Minnesota yesterday. Ms. Trosen requested that I ask
the Court to not make ICE track down an officer in El Paso to discuss Petitioner’s flight
for today’s hearing given that he has been returned to Minnesota.” 	(Jan. 23, 2026 Letter
[Doc. No. 17].) 	Respondents have returned Petitioner to Minnesota over one week after
moving him out of state, in violation of this Court’s January 15 Order and its TRO Order,
and in contradiction to representations made by Respondents’ counsel in letters dated
January 20 and 21. 	According to DHS’s Detainee Locator website, USCIS is detaining
Petitioner at the Sherburne County Jail in Elk River, Minnesota. 	DHS, USCIS, Online
Detainee Locator System, https://locator.ice.gov/odls/#/search (last visited Jan. 23, 2026 at
10:17 a.m.).
In response to the Petition, Respondents state that Petitioner entered the country as
a refugee over a year ago and that his status had not been adjusted to lawful permanent
resident at the time of his arrest. (Resp’ts’ Opp’n at 2–3.) Thus, according to Respondents,
8 U.S.C. § 1159(a) authorizes Petitioner’s mandatory detention. (Id.)
CASE 0:26-cv-00301-SRN-ECW Doc. 18 Filed 01/23/26 Page 5 of 13

6
II. 	DISCUSSION
Following lengthy screening and vetting procedures, refugees may be lawfully
admitted 	to 	the 	United 	States 	under 	8 	U.S.C. 	§ 	1157. 	USCIS, 	Refugees,
https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refugees-and-asylum/refugees (last visited January
15, 2026). Admission as a refugee is a distinct lawful immigration status. After residing
in the United States for one year, refugees are required to apply for adjustment of status to
lawful permanent residence. 8 U.S.C. § 1159(a). Specifically, 8 U.S.C. § 1159(a) states
that an individual admitted as a refugee who has been physically present in the United
States for over one year “shall, at the end of such year period, return or be returned to the
custody of the Department of Homeland Security for inspection and examination for
admission to the United States as an immigrant in accordance with the provisions of
sections 1225, 1229a, and 1231 of this title.” 8 U.S.C. § 1159(a).
Section 1159 only contemplates DHS’s “custody” of refugees for the limited
purpose of conducting an inspection necessary to adjudicate adjustment of status under
§ 1159(a)(2). 	E.E. v. Bondi, No. 26-cv-314 (JWB/DTS) (D. Minn. Jan. 17, 2026) [Doc.
No. 7 at 7]. As to detention, however,
[n]othing in § 1159 authorizes detention untethered from that function. Nor
does the statute mandate detention, prescribe a minimum duration of custody,
or reclassify an admitted refugee as an “arriving alien” or “applicant for
admission.” 	The 	cross-reference 	to 	§ 	1225 	provides 	the 	procedural
mechanics of inspection, not an independent or mandatory detention regime.
Custody under § 1159(a) is therefore lawful only to the extent it serves the
inspection and examination contemplated by the statute.
Roman N. v. Trump, No. 26-cv-282 (JWB/DLM) (D. Minn. Jan. 19, 2026) [Doc. No. 6 at
5]. 	In fact, none of the cross-referenced provisions in 8 U.S.C. § 1159(a) from which
CASE 0:26-cv-00301-SRN-ECW Doc. 18 Filed 01/23/26 Page 6 of 13

7
continued detention following “inspection and examination for admission” may emanate—
§§ 1225, 1229a, or 1231—support Petitioner’s detention.
First, mandatory detention under § 1225 only applies to certain arriving aliens who
are 	inadmissible, 	8 	U.S.C. 	§ 	1225(b)(1), 	or 	who 	are 	considered 	“applicant[s] 	for
admission,” id. § 1225(b)(2)(A). See also Maldonado v. Olson, 795 F. Supp. 3d 1134 (D.
Minn. 	2025) 	(distinguishing 	between 	detention 	under 	§§ 	1225(b)(2) 	and 	1226(a)).
Petitioner is not “arriving.” He has been residing in the United States. Nor is he a person
who has “not been admitted or paroled,” as he was lawfully admitted to the United States
on September 5, 2023. 	Accordingly, neither §§ 1225(b)(1) nor 1225(b)(2) subject
Petitioner to mandatory detention.
Second, § 1231 does not support Petitioner’s continued detention either. 	Section
1231 provides for the mandatory detention and removal of noncitizens ordered removed,
directing that “[d]uring the removal period, the Attorney General shall detain the alien”
during the 90-day “removal period” that generally runs from date that a removal order is
administratively final. 	8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1)(A)–(B), (a)(2)(A). 	Detention may be
extended beyond 90 days if DHS determines that the person is “a risk to the community or
unlikely to comply with the order of removal.” 	Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 682
(2001) (citing 8 U.S.C. 1231(a)(6)). Nothing in the record demonstrates that Petitioner has
been ordered removed, therefore he cannot be detained in accordance with § 1231. Abdi
F.W. v. Trump, No. 26-cv-208 (KMM/SGE) (D. Minn. Jan. 21, 2026) [Doc. No. 7 at 6]
(finding detention under § 1231 inapplicable where no evidence showed petitioner had
been ordered removed from the United States).
CASE 0:26-cv-00301-SRN-ECW Doc. 18 Filed 01/23/26 Page 7 of 13

8
Finally, § 1229a applies to “removal proceedings” and contains no standalone
detention provisions. 	See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a. 	Even when removal proceedings are
underway, “most aliens may be released on bond or paroled.” Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 683
(citing 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a)(2), (c)). 	Again, nothing here demonstrates that Petitioner has
been placed in removal proceedings. The detention provision that corresponds to § 1229a
is 8 U.S.C. § 1226, but mandatory detention under § 1226(c) only applies to noncitizens
who have been convicted of serious crimes, and discretionary detention under 1226(a)
requires the issuance of a warrant. There is no showing here of a conviction for a serious
crime, let alone any crime, nor is there evidence of a warrant. Accordingly, detention under
§ 1229a is inapplicable to Petitioner.
Section 1159’s implementing regulations confirm the limited purpose of DHS’s
“inspection” under the statute. See 8 C.F.R. § 209.1(b), (d). 	After one year of presence in
the United States, a refugee must submit an adjustment application and biometrics, and
USCIS determines whether an interview or further examination is necessary. Id. Detention
is not mandatory under the regulations, which do not contemplate prolonged custody in the
absence of the statutory inspection, in any event.
Likewise, the agency’s own guidance confirms that a refugee’s failure to apply for
adjustment of status “is not a sufficient ground to place them in removal proceedings, and
therefore not a proper basis for detaining them.” ICE Policy Memorandum 11039.1, issued
on May 10, 2010 by ICE’s Director, James Chaparro, addresses “Detention of Refugees
Admitted Under INA [Immigration and Nationality Act] § 207 Who Have Failed to Adjust
to Lawful Permanent Residence Status.” 	(Pet’r Ex. 4 (P.M. 11039.1).) 	Again, here,
CASE 0:26-cv-00301-SRN-ECW Doc. 18 Filed 01/23/26 Page 8 of 13

9
Petitioner did not fail to apply for adjustment of status. 	USCIS received his application,
but one year and four months later, the agency has thus far failed to adjudicate it.
As to the decision to detain or release an unadjusted refugee, the ICE Policy
Memorandum provides express time limits:
Except in the case of emergency or other extraordinary circumstances, upon
the arrest of an unadjusted refugee upon reasonable belief of removability, a
DRO [Detention and Removal Operations] Field Office must determine, no
later than 48 hours after the arrest, whether to release the individual or issue
a Notice to Appear (NTA), Form I-862, indicating the removal charge(s)
applicable to the alien. 	See 8 C.F.R. § 287.3(d); Memorandum from Asa
Hutchinson, Undersecretary for Border and Transp. Sec., Guidance on ICE
Implementation of Policy and Practice Changes Recommended by the Dep’t
of Justice Inspector Gen. 2 (Mar. 30, 2004). If it becomes apparent earlier
that no removability 	ground applies, the individual 	must be 	released
promptly.
(Id.) (emphasis added). If a refugee is to be issued an NTA, it must be served “promptly,”
and, in any case, within 72 hours of arrest, absent an emergency or other extraordinary
circumstances. (Id. at 3.) Ultimately, if ICE fails to reach a determination about placing
an unadjusted refugee in removal proceedings within 48 hours, “the DRO Field Office
should release the alien with a reminder that the INA imposes an obligation upon him or
her to apply for adjustment of status under section 209(a) and to provide DHS with updated
address information. . . .” (Id. at 3–4.)
Regarding the effect of the failure to adjust status on removability, the ICE Policy
Memorandum states,
A refugee may not be placed in removal proceedings based on a failure to
adjust status or to apply for adjustment of status because an alien’s failure to
adjust status or apply for adjustment under INA § 209(a) is not a ground of
removability. 	Therefore, the only way DRO may place an unadjusted
refugee in proceedings is if a violation of the INA can be established that is
CASE 0:26-cv-00301-SRN-ECW Doc. 18 Filed 01/23/26 Page 9 of 13

10
unrelated to the alien’s failure to adjust, such as fraud or a criminal conviction
that forms the basis for a charge under INA §§ 212 or 237.
(Id.)
Respondents do not challenge Petitioner’s claim that he applied to adjust his status
to that of lawful permanent resident when he was eligible to do so and that he is awaiting
a decision from USCIS. 	Instead, they claim that Petitioner’s detention is mandatory
because he entered the United States on September 5, 2023, and despite their receipt of his
pending application for adjustment of status on September 20, 2024, “it has been more than
one year since Petitioner entered the United States.” (Resp’ts’ Opp’n at 2.) But refugees
are not eligible to apply for adjustment of status until they have “been physically present
in the United States for at least one year,” 8 U.S.C. § 1159(a)(1)(B) (emphasis added), and
USCIS controls the length of the review process. Even if a refugee filed an application for
adjustment of status at the earliest possible opportunity—366 days after entry into the
United States—Respondents still control the length of adjudication. 	The reason that
Petitioner has not acquired permanent resident status is because Respondents have failed
to adjudicate his pending application for permanent residence. 	It has been pending with
USCIS for well over a year. “Respondents cannot justify [Petitioner’s] continued detention
through an open-ended assurance that they will get around to conducting the inspection
and examination required by § 1159(a), which presents their only identified basis for
continued detention.” Abdi F.W., No. 26-cv-208 (D. Minn. Jan. 21, 2026) [Doc. No. 7 at
8.].
CASE 0:26-cv-00301-SRN-ECW Doc. 18 Filed 01/23/26 Page 10 of 13

11
Respondents’ claims that Petitioner’s detention “is not indefinite,” his status is
“preliminary,” and that his “inspection will occur in due course” fail to justify his detention.
(Resp’ts’ Opp’n at 2–3.) There is no indication of whether and when inspection will occur.
This Orwellian situation, in which a lawfully admitted refugee’s personal liberty hangs in
the balance, is rooted in USCIS’s delay. Vague assurances of inspection “in due course”
cannot serve as a lawful basis for Petitioner’s open-ended detention.
Again, when “unadjusted” refugees are arrested for an inspection under § 1159, ICE
must determine whether to release the individual or issue an NTA indicating the removal
charges “no later than 48 hours after the arrest.”1 	(Pet’r Ex. 4 (PM 11039.1) at 2.)
Respondents have unlawfully detained Petitioner for far longer than 48 hours. He has been
detained since January 14, and ICE has now detained him for eight days. His detention is
unsupported under the law.
In addition to violating the INA, Respondents have violated orders of this Court by
moving Petitioner outside the District of Minnesota, and then, after the issuance of a TRO
mandating his return to Minnesota no later than January 18, 2026 at 5:26 p.m., they failed
1 Certain provisions of the INA and its implementing regulations, not at issue here, also
contain time limits for review and examination. 	See 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(2) (addressing
powers of immigration officers without a warrant and requiring that certain arrested aliens
“shall be taken without unnecessary delay for examination before an officer of the Service
having authority to examine aliens as to their right to enter or remain in the United States.”)
(emphasis added); 8 C.F.R. § 287.3(d) (providing that for aliens arrested on criminal
charges without warrant, subject to certain exceptions, “a determination will be made
within 48 hours of the arrest, except in the event of an emergency or other extraordinary
circumstance in which case a determination will be made within an additional reasonable
period of time, whether the alien will be continued in custody or released on bond or
recognizance and whether a notice to appear and warrant of arrest as prescribed in 8 CFR
parts 236 and 239 will be issued.”).
CASE 0:26-cv-00301-SRN-ECW Doc. 18 Filed 01/23/26 Page 11 of 13

12
to comply. Furthermore, on January 22, 2026, Respondents also failed to comply with the
Court’s January 20, 2026 Text-Only Order requiring a daily update by 5:00 p.m. on the
status of Petitioner’s return to Minnesota. 	Only after the Court invoked contempt
proceedings and scheduled a hearing that required the attendance of the ICE Officer
responsible for Petitioner’s return to Minnesota did Respondents return Petitioner to
Minnesota.
In sum, Respondents have had ample opportunity to conduct an examination and
inspection under § 1159(a). Under the circumstances here, in which Petitioner’s detention
has far exceeded the permissible 48-hour bounds and Respondents have violated three
orders of this Court, the appropriate habeas remedy is immediate release in the District of
Minnesota, as set forth below. 	See Munaf v. Geren, 553 U.S. 674, 693 (2008) (describing
release as the “typical remedy” for “unlawful executive detention”).
III. 	ORDER
Based on the submissions and the entire file and proceedings herein, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED that
1. 	Petitioner Liban G.’s Emergency Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus [Doc. No.
1] is GRANTED.
2. 	Respondents shall release Petitioner from custody IMMEDIATELY, in the
District of Minnesota, but no later than by 5:00 p.m. CST on January 23, 2026.
3. 	In light of the local weather conditions in which the ground temperature is
currently -15 degrees Fahrenheit, Respondents shall provide Petitioner’s counsel
with at least two hours’ notice in advance of his release so that transportation
can be arranged from the detention facility. 	Under no circumstances shall
Respondents 	release 	him 	outdoors 	without 	coordinating 	with 	Petitioner’s
counsel.
CASE 0:26-cv-00301-SRN-ECW Doc. 18 Filed 01/23/26 Page 12 of 13

13
4. 	Respondents shall confirm Petitioner’s release within 2 hours of his release.
Dated: January 23, 2026
s/Susan Richard Nelson
SUSAN RICHARD NELSON
United States District Judge
CASE 0:26-cv-00301-SRN-ECW Doc. 18 Filed 01/23/26 Page 13 of 13