Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Gabriela G.,
Petitioner,
v.
Kristi Noem, in her capacity as Secretary of
the United States Department of Homeland
Security; Todd M. Lyons, in his official
capacity as Acting Director of the United
States Immigration and Customs
Enforcement; Pamela Bondi, in their official
capacity as Attorney General of the United
States; and David Easterwood, in his official
capacity as Acting Director, St. Paul Field
Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement,
Respondents.
File No. 26-cv-590 (ECT/EMB)
OPINION AND ORDER
Rachel M. Engebretson, Engebretson Law Firm, P.A., Blaine, MN, for Petitioner Gabriela
G.
Ana H. Voss and Trevor Brown, United States Attorney’s Office, Minneapolis, MN, for
Respondents Kristi Noem, Todd M. Lyons, Pamela Bondi, and David Easterwood.
Petitioner Gabriela G. is a Mexican citizen who has lived in the United States since
March 2023, when she entered the country without inspection. 	Pet. [ECF No. 1] ¶¶ 21,
33–34. Gabriela was not apprehended upon arrival, and she “has had no prior encounters
with Immigration and Customs Enforcement.” 	Id. ¶¶ 6, 34. 	Gabriela “has no criminal
history in the United States or anywhere else in the world.” Id. ¶ 35. On January 23, 2026,
Respondents—or 	their 	agents—arrested 	Gabriela 	without 	a 	warrant 	in 	Northfield,
CASE 0:26-cv-00590-ECT-EMB Doc. 5 Filed 01/29/26 Page 1 of 6

2
Minnesota. Id. ¶¶ 7, 13, 37; see also ECF No. 4 at 2 (stating that Gabriela was “arrested
by ICE agents”). 	She is “currently detained at Fort Snelling, Minnesota.” 	Pet. ¶¶ 6, 17,
38. Gabriela is “not detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c), § 1225(b)(1), or § 1231.” Id. ¶ 6.1
According to the Petition, Gabriela is entitled to release as a member of the class certified
in Maldonado Bautista v. Santacruz, No. 5:25-CV-1873-SSS-BFM (C.D. Cal.). 	See id.
¶¶ 1–11.
Gabriela challenges her detention under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 	Pet. ¶ 14. 	She claims
she has been wrongly classified as a § 1225(b)(2) detainee (whose detention is mandatory)
rather than a § 1226(a) detainee (whose detention is discretionary and who is entitled to a
bond hearing). 	Pet. ¶¶ 42–67; see Jose J.O.E. v. Bondi, 797 F. Supp. 3d 957, 961–62
(D. Minn. 	2025) 	(explaining 	legal 	framework). 	According 	to 	Gabriela, 	that
misclassification and denial of a bond hearing violate her right to due process under the
Fifth Amendment, the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), and the Immigration and
Nationality Act (“INA”) and its implementing regulations. See Pet. ¶¶ 75–107. Gabriela
seeks a declaration that her detention without a bond hearing violates the Due Process
Clause of the Fifth Amendment, the INA, and the APA; issuance of an order enjoining
Respondents from transferring or removing her outside the District of Minnesota or the
United States pending the adjudication of the Petition, and if she has already been moved,
an order directing Respondents to return her to Minnesota; an order for her immediate
1 	Neither party provided the Court with Gabriela’s Notice to Appear or the other
paperwork we’ve often received in these cases. 	In this case, it doesn’t matter. 	In their
response to Gabriela’s habeas petition, Respondents did not contest any of the facts alleged
in the Petition. See ECF No. 4 at 2.
CASE 0:26-cv-00590-ECT-EMB Doc. 5 Filed 01/29/26 Page 2 of 6

3
release, or in the alternative for a bond hearing; and attorneys’ fees and costs. Pet. at 30–
31.
In their response, Respondents that Gabriela’s Petition fails on the merits for the
same reasons set forth in the appeal of Avila v. Bondi, No. 25-cv-3741 (JRT/SGE), 2025
WL 2976539 (D. Minn. Oct. 21, 2025), appeal docketed, No. 25-3248 (8th Cir. Nov. 10,
2025). See ECF No. 4 at 6. This raises an issue of statutory interpretation2 that courts in
this District have repeatedly considered and rejected, and it will be rejected here as well.
Gabriela has shown she 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),
2 	To the extent Respondents challenge this Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction to
consider Gabriela’s Petition, 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-00590-ECT-EMB Doc. 5 Filed 01/29/26 Page 3 of 6

4
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). Gabriela has lived in the United States for more than two years. See Pet. ¶¶ 33–34.
Her detention falls under § 1226(a) and not § 1225(b)(2).3
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, 2025 WL 2688541, at *11 (D. Me. Sep. 21,
2025), appeal filed (Nov. 7, 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, 2025 WL 2783642, at *5 (D. Me.
Sep. 30, 2025); J.A.C.P. v. Wofford, No. 1:25-cv-01354, 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
3 	Respondents do not argue that Gabriela is subject to mandatory detention pursuant
to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c), or that any other statutory scheme other than that raised in the
Petition would apply to Gabriela’s detention. See ECF No. 4; see also Pet. ¶ 6 (stating that
Gabriela “is not detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c), § 1225(b)(1), or § 1231”).
CASE 0:26-cv-00590-ECT-EMB Doc. 5 Filed 01/29/26 Page 4 of 6

5
triggered”), appeal dismissed, 2023 WL 5212561 (11th Cir. July 11, 2023). Here, Gabriela
alleges that she was arrested without a warrant. Pet. ¶¶ 13, 37. Respondents were ordered
to include in their answer “[w]hether the absence of a warrant preceding [Gabriela’s] arrest
necessitates [Gabriela’s] immediate release.” See ECF No. 3 at 2. Respondents have not
produced a warrant, nor have they advanced any specific argument that Gabriela’s release
is an unwarranted remedy. See ECF No. 4 at 6 (“The Federal Respondents . . . acknowledge
that some judges in this District conclude the absence of a warrant preceding a petitioner’s
arrest necessitates immediate release.”).
“[R]elease is an available and appropriate remedy” for “detention that lacks a lawful
predicate.” 	Order on Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus at 6, Vedat C. v. Bondi, No.
25-cv-4642 (JWB/DTS) (D. Minn. Dec. 19, 2025), ECF No. 9 (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 (reaching same conclusion); 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)).4
4 	The resolution of this statutory-interpretation question in Gabriela’s favor makes it
unnecessary to address the Petition’s remaining grounds.
CASE 0:26-cv-00590-ECT-EMB Doc. 5 Filed 01/29/26 Page 5 of 6

6
ORDER
Therefore, based on the foregoing, and on all the files, records, and proceedings
herein, IT IS ORDERED THAT Petitioner Gabriela G.’s 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).
2. 	Respondents shall release Petitioner from custody as soon as practicable, but
not later than 48 hours after entry of this Order.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: January 29, 2026, at 9:55 a.m. 	s/ Eric C. Tostrud
Eric C. Tostrud
United States District Court
CASE 0:26-cv-00590-ECT-EMB Doc. 5 Filed 01/29/26 Page 6 of 6