Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
ROSEMARY N.A.
Petitioner,
v.
DAVID EASTERWOOD, Director, St. Paul
Field Office, U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement,
KRISTI NOEM, Secretary, U.S. Department
of Homeland Security; and
PAMELA BONDI, United States Attorney
General,
Respondents.
Civil No. 26-832 (JRT/JFD)
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
GRANTING PETITION FOR WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS
On January 29, 2026, Petitioner Rosemary N.A. filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus. 	(Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Pet.”) ¶ 1, Jan. 29, 2026, Docket No. 1.)
Petitioner was detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) officials
on January 29, 2026, while attending an ICE check-in. 	(Id. ¶ 15.) 	Because the Court
concludes that it has jurisdiction and that Petitioner is being detained unlawfully, the
Court will grant the petition and order Petitioner’s immediate release.
CASE 0:26-cv-00832-JRT-JFD Doc. 9 Filed 02/05/26 Page 1 of 4

2
DISCUSSION
Petitioner is a citizen of Colombia and a resident of Minneapolis. (Pet. ¶ 14.) She
has no criminal history and is employed as a baker at a local bakery. (Id.) Petitioner is
pursuing an asylum application. (Id. ¶ 17.)
Respondents rely on 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) to justify Petitioner’s detention. 	The
Court rejects that justification. 	After thorough review of the parties’ filings, 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); Romero Santuario v. Bondi, Civ. 25-4296, 2025
WL 3469577 (D. Minn, Dec. 2, 2025); and Iishaar-Abdi v. Klang, Civ. No. 25-4686, 2025 WL
3764853, at *1 n.2 (D. Minn. Dec. 30, 2025). Section 1225(b)(2) does not authorize the
warrantless, notice-less arrest of an individual already present in the United States. For
the same reasons articulated in Herrera Avila and Romero Santuario, the Court concludes
that Petitioner’s detention is not authorized by § 1225(b)(2).
The Court therefore turns to the proper remedy. In some previous cases involving
this issue, the Court concluded that a bond hearing pursuant to § 1226(a) is the
appropriate remedy. 	However, the Court is now persuaded that 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
CASE 0:26-cv-00832-JRT-JFD Doc. 9 Filed 02/05/26 Page 2 of 4

3
M. v. Bondi, No. 25-4711, 2026 WL 25627, at *3 (D. Minn. Jan. 5, 2026); Lauro M. v. Bondi,
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.”).
ORDER
Based on the foregoing, and all the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. 	Petitioner Rosemary N.A.’s 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 presently detained outside of the District 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 remains in detention 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-00832-JRT-JFD Doc. 9 Filed 02/05/26 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 	licenses, 	passports, 	or 	immigration 	documents, 	and 	without
conditions including location tracking or mandatory check-ins.
f. 	The 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 February 8,
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: February 5, 2026 	_____/s/ John R. Tunheim_____
at Minneapolis, Minnesota. 	JOHN R. TUNHEIM
United States District Judge
CASE 0:26-cv-00832-JRT-JFD Doc. 9 Filed 02/05/26 Page 4 of 4