Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Daniel S.,
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; and Eric
Tollefson, Sheriff of Kandiyohi County,
Respondents.
File No. 26-cv-338 (ECT/ECW)
OPINION AND ORDER
Kira Aakre Kelley, Climate Defense Project, Minneapolis, MN, for Petitioner Daniel S.
Ana H. Voss,1 United States Attorney’s Office, Minneapolis, MN, for Respondents Pamela
Bondi, Kristi Noem, Todd M. Lyons, David Easterwood and Eric Tollefson.
Petitioner Daniel S. is an Ecuadorian citizen who has lived in the United States since
August 2023,2 when he entered the country without inspection. Pet. [ECF No. 1] ¶¶ 13–
1 	The response brief was signed by Sarah Hogfoss on behalf of the United States
Attorney’s Office. See ECF No. 5 at 9. Ms. Hogfoss has not filed a notice of appearance
in this case. See Dkt.
2 	The Petition states that Daniel “has lived in the United States since August 7, 2023,”
Pet. ¶ 13, but a declaration filed with Respondents’ response brief states that Daniel “was
first encountered by United States Border Patrol (USBP) on or about August 1, 2023,”
ECF No. 6 ¶ 4. The specific day that Daniel arrived in August 2023 does not impact the
legal analysis here.
CASE 0:26-cv-00338-ECT-ECW Doc. 9 Filed 01/20/26 Page 1 of 7

2
14; see ECF No. 6 ¶ 4. According to Respondents’3 deportation-officer declarant, Daniel
“was first encountered by United States Border Patrol (USBP) on or about August 1, 2023,
at or near San Luis, AZ.” ECF No. 6 ¶ 4. “USBP determined that [Daniel] had entered the
U.S. without inspection or admission by an immigration officer and served him a Notice
and Order of Expedited Removal, Form I-860.” Id. “[Daniel] claimed fear of returning to
Ecuador and was referred to the asylum office for an interview.” Id. “On August 7, 2023,
it was determined that [Daniel’s] fear claim was credible and a Notice to Appear, Form
I-862 was issued.” Id. ¶ 5. Daniel “was then released on his own recognizance.” Id. “On
January 27, 2025, [Daniel] filed an Application for Asylum and for Withholding of
Removal, Form I-589.” Id. ¶ 6; see also Pet. ¶ 14. “The Department of Homeland Security
approved employment authorization for [Daniel] in July 2025 . . . .” 	Pet. ¶ 15. 	Daniel’s
“application for asylum is pending.” Id. ¶ 14. “He has presented at court dates, and has a
hearing scheduled January 15, 2026.” Id. ¶ 15. According to the Petition, “[b]ased upon
knowledge at the time of filing, including a public search of the Minnesota Records Online,
[Daniel] has a spotless criminal record.” 	Id. ¶ 17. 	Though the date and location he was
taken into custody is unclear, Daniel was detained as part of Operation Metro Surge. See
Pet. ¶ 18 (stating that Daniel was detained “[o]n or about January 13, 2026” while “at a job
site of a hotel under construction in New Richmond, WI”); ECF No. 6 ¶ 7 (“On
December 27, 2025, ICE encountered [Daniel] in Minnesota during Operation Metro Surge
and arrested him.”). 	The individuals arresting Daniel “provided no warrant.” 	Pet. ¶ 18.
3 	When used in this Order, “Respondents” refers to the federal officials named as
Respondents. Respondent Eric Tollefson, the Kandiyohi County Sheriff, has not appeared
in these proceedings.
CASE 0:26-cv-00338-ECT-ECW Doc. 9 Filed 01/20/26 Page 2 of 7

3
As of January 17, 2026, Daniel “is . . . being housed at the Kandiyohi County Jail in
Willmar, [Minnesota],” with his “next court date” on January 22, 2026.” ECF No. 6 ¶ 7.4
Here, Daniel challenges his detention under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Pet. ¶ 2. He claims
he has been wrongly classified as a § 1225(b)(2) detainee (whose detention is mandatory)
rather than a § 1226 detainee (whose detention is discretionary and who is entitled to a
bond hearing). Id. ¶¶ 32–36, 45–47; see Jose J.O.E. v. Bondi, 797 F. Supp. 3d 957, 961–
62 	(D. Minn. 	2025) 	(explaining 	legal 	framework). 	According 	to 	Daniel, 	that
misclassification and denial of a bond hearing violate his right to due process under the
Fifth Amendment, 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), and the Administrative Procedure Act. 	See Pet.
¶¶ 37–54. 	He seeks issuance of a writ of habeas corpus ordering Respondents to release
him from custody or set a bond hearing for him pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), and an
order enjoining his removal or transfer out of the District of Minnesota during the pendency
of this case. Pet. at 16.
Respondents, “acknowledg[ing] that this case presents similar legal and factual
issues to prior habeas petitions,” maintain that Daniel is subject to mandatory detention
under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2), and they argue that the petition fails on the merits as a matter
4 	Neither party provided the Court with Daniel’s Notice to Appear or the other
paperwork we’ve usually received in these cases. In this case, it doesn’t matter. In their
response to Daniel’s habeas petition, Respondents did not contest any of the facts alleged
in the Petition. See ECF No. 5 at 1–2.
CASE 0:26-cv-00338-ECT-ECW Doc. 9 Filed 01/20/26 Page 3 of 7

4
of statutory interpretation.5 	ECF No. 5 at 3. 	Courts in this District have repeatedly
considered and rejected Respondents’ argument, and it will be rejected here as well.
Daniel has shown he has been misclassified under § 1225(b)(2) rather than § 1226.
As courts have explained, the former statute applies to applicants “seeking admission,” and
the latter to “aliens already in the country.” 	8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A); Jennings v.
Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281, 289 (2018) (construing 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and (c)); see
Francisco T. v. Bondi, 797 F. Supp. 3d 970, 974–76 (D. Minn. 2025); Belsai D.S. v. Bondi,
--- F. Supp. 3d ---, No. 25-cv-3682 (KMM/EMB), 2025 WL 2802947, at *6–7 (D. Minn.
Oct. 1, 2025); Eliseo A.A. v. Olson, --- F. Supp. 3d ---, No. 25-cv-3381 (JWB/DJF), 2025
WL 2886729, at *2–4 (D. Minn. Oct. 8, 2025); Avila v. Bondi, No. 25-cv-3741 (JRT/SGE),
2025 WL 2976539, at *5–7 (D. Minn. Oct. 21, 2025), appeal filed, No. 25-3248 (8th Cir.
Nov. 10, 2025); Andres R.E. v. Bondi, No. 25-cv-3946 (NEB/DLM), 2025 WL 3146312,
at *2–3 (D. Minn. Nov. 4, 2025); E.M. v. Noem, 25-cv-3975 (SRN/DTS), 2025 WL
3157839, at *4–8 (D. Minn. Nov. 12, 2025); Santos M.C. v. Olson, No. 25-cv-4264
(PJS/DJF), 2025 WL 3281787, at *2–3 (D. Minn. Nov. 25, 2025). As of this writing, only
one federal court of appeals has ruled on the question, and it reached the same conclusion.
See Castañon-Nava v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 161 F.4th 1048 (7th Cir. 2025). Daniel
5 	Respondents do not challenge this Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction to consider
Daniel’s petition. 	See ECF No. 5. 	Nonetheless, consistent with previous rulings on this
issue, I find that the jurisdiction-stripping provisions of § 1252(a)(5), (b)(9), and (g) do not
apply to “the narrow question whether a noncitizen is subject to discretionary detention
under 8 U.S.C. § 1226 or mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2).” 	Fernando F.P.D. v.
Brott, No. 25-cv-4455 (ECT/ECW), 2025 WL 3675151, at *2 (D. Minn. Dec. 17, 2025)
(citing cases).
CASE 0:26-cv-00338-ECT-ECW Doc. 9 Filed 01/20/26 Page 4 of 7

5
has lived in the United States for more than two years. His detention falls under § 12266
and not § 1225(b)(2).7
The final issue is the appropriate remedy. 	Section 1226 provides that “[o]n a
warrant issued by the Attorney General, an alien may be arrested and detained.” 8 U.S.C. §
1226(a) (emphasis added). 	“Issuance of a warrant is a necessary condition to justify
discretionary detention under section 1226(a).” Chogllo Chafla v. Scott, --- F. Supp. 3d ---,
No. 2:25-cv-00437-SDN, 2025 WL 2688541, at *11 (D. Me. Sept. 21, 2025), appeal filed
(Nov. 6, 2025). 	“[I]t follows that absent a warrant a noncitizen may not be arrested and
detained under section 1226(a).” Id. (emphasis in original); accord Chiliquinga Yumbillo
v. Stamper, No. 2:25-cv-00479-SDN, 2025 WL 2783642, at *5 (D. Me. Sept. 30, 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); see also Florida v. United States, 660 F. Supp. 3d 1239, 1276 (N.D.
Fla. 2023) (stating § 1226 “is not even triggered unless an arrest warrant is issued” and that
“[i]f [an] alien has not been arrested on a warrant, then the subsequent provisions giving
the Attorney General discretion to detain or release ‘the arrested alien’ are likewise not
triggered”), appeal dismissed, 2023 WL 5212561 (11th Cir. July 11, 2023). Here, Daniel
alleges that agents “provided no warrant” when he was arrested. Pet. ¶ 18. Respondents
6 	Respondents do not argue that Daniel is subject to mandatory detention under
8 U.S.C. § 1226(c).
7 	The resolution of this statutory-interpretation question in Daniel’s favor makes it
unnecessary to address the Petition’s remaining grounds.
CASE 0:26-cv-00338-ECT-ECW Doc. 9 Filed 01/20/26 Page 5 of 7

6
have not produced any warrant, nor have they advanced any specific argument that
Daniel’s release is an unwarranted remedy. See ECF No. 5.
“[R]elease is an available and appropriate remedy” for “detention that lacks a lawful
predicate.” 	Order on Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Vedat C. v. Bondi, No.
25-cv-4642 (JWB/DTS) (D. Minn. Dec. 19, 2025), ECF No. 9 at 6 (citing Munaf v. Geren,
553 U.S. 674, 693 (2008)). 	“Where the record shows Respondents have not identified a
valid statutory basis for detention in the first place, the remedy is not to supply one through
further proceedings.” 	Id.; see Chogllo Chafla, --- F. Supp. 3d ---, 2025 WL 2688541, at
*11 (“Since the Government did not comply with the plain language of section 1226(a),
[petitioners’] immediate release is justified.”); J.A.C.P., 2025 WL 3013328, at *8 (same);
Chiliquinga Yumbillo, 2025 WL 2783642, at *5 (same); see also Munaf, 553 U.S. at 693
(“Habeas is at its core a remedy for unlawful executive detention. The typical remedy for
such detention is, of course, release.” (citation modified)).
ORDER
Therefore, based on the foregoing, and on all the files, records, and proceedings
herein, IT IS ORDERED THAT Petitioner Daniel S.’s Verified Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus [ECF No. 1] is GRANTED as follows:
1. 	Petitioner is not subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2).
CASE 0:26-cv-00338-ECT-ECW Doc. 9 Filed 01/20/26 Page 6 of 7

7
2. 	Respondents shall release Petitioner from custody as soon as practicable, but
no later than 48 hours from the entry of this Order.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: January 20, 2026, at 5:55 p.m. 	s/ Eric C. Tostrud
Eric C. Tostrud
United States District Court
CASE 0:26-cv-00338-ECT-ECW Doc. 9 Filed 01/20/26 Page 7 of 7