Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Carlos G.R.L.,
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; and David
Easterwood, Acting Director, St. Paul
Field Office Immigration and Customs
Enforcement,
Respondents.
Civil No. 26-1049 (DWF/DJF)
MEMORANDUM
OPINION AND ORDER
INTRODUCTION
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Carlos G.R.L.’s petition for a writ of
habeas corpus alleging that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution and laws of
the United States (the “Petition”) (Doc. No. 1) and emergency motion to show cause
(Doc. No. 4). Respondents oppose the Petition but do not address the motion to show
cause. (Doc. No. 5.) For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants the Petition, orders
Respondents to immediately release Petitioner, and grants Petitioner’s motion to show
cause.
BACKGROUND
Petitioner is a citizen of Ecuador and resident of Minneapolis, Minnesota. (Doc.
No. 1 ¶¶ 7, 12.) Petitioner has lived in the United States since February 2024. (Id. ¶ 12.)
CASE 0:26-cv-01049-DWF-DJF Doc. 7 Filed 02/09/26 Page 1 of 7

2
Upon arrival to the United States, Petitioner presented himself at the border, and he was
released with a notice to appear. (Id. ¶ 13.) He does not have a final order of removal,
and his removal proceedings are pending before the immigration court. (Id.) Petitioner
lives with his domestic partner, and he is a father of four children—two of whom live in
Minneapolis, Minnesota. (Id. ¶ 14.)
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) agents arrested Petitioner on
February 4, 2026. (Id. ¶ 15.) Petitioner was parked on the side of the road when two
SUVs and a sedan surrounded his vehicle and six ICE agents emerged. (Id.) Petitioner
tried to run into a home, but an ICE agent grabbed him, at which point Petitioner did not
resist. (Id. ¶ 16.) The agents did not ask for Petitioner’s identification and did not
present him with a warrant. (Id. ¶ 17.) The agents also attempted to gain access to the
home that Petitioner tried to enter without a warrant, but they were unsuccessful. (Id.
¶ 18.) Petitioner was brought to the Whipple Federal Building at Fort Snelling in
Minnesota. (Id. ¶¶ 7, 19.)
Petitioner filed the Petition on February 4, 2026. (Id. at 17.) Petitioner asserts that
his detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) is unlawful because it violates the Due Process
Clause of the Fifth Amendment, the Immigration and Nationality Act, and the
Administrative Procedure Act. (Id. ¶¶ 33-49.) Petitioner requests, among other things,
immediate release from detention or an order requiring Respondents to provide him with
a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226 within seven days. (Id. at 16.) On February 4,
2026, the Court ordered Respondents to answer the Petition on or before February 6,
2026, at 12:00 p.m. CT, and enjoined Respondents from moving Petitioner from this
CASE 0:26-cv-01049-DWF-DJF Doc. 7 Filed 02/09/26 Page 2 of 7

3
District pending further order. (Doc. No. 3.) 1 On February 5, 2026, Petitioner filed an
emergency motion to show cause, stating that Respondents moved Petitioner to a
detention facility in Texas in violation of the Court’s February 4th Order. (Doc. No. 4.)
Specifically, at the time that motion was filed, Petitioner was located at a detention center
in El Paso, Texas. (Doc. No. 4 at 2.) Respondents timely filed a form response to the
Petition but did not address the issue of whether Petitioner was transferred after the Court
specifically ordered Respondents not to move Petitioner and, therefore, whether
Respondents were in violation of the Court’s Order. (Doc. No. 5.)
DISCUSSION
A district court may provide habeas relief to a person who is being detained in
violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). That
authority includes jurisdiction to hear habeas challenges to immigration-related detention.
Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 687 (2001); Deng Chol A. v. Barr, 455 F. Supp. 3d 896,
900-01 (D. Minn. 2020). The burden is on the petitioner to prove illegal detention by a
preponderance of the evidence. See Mohammed H. v. Trump, 786 F. Supp. 3d 1149, 1154
(D. Minn. 2025).
Respondents submitted a form response, arguing that Petitioner is subject to
mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A), and pointing the Court to their
1 	At the time the Petition was filed, Petitioner had been brought to the Whipple
Building at Fort Snelling in Minnesota, and at 4:32 p.m. CT on February 4, 2026, the ICE
Detainee Locator indicated “Call ICE For Details” as Petitioner’s current detention
facility. (Doc. No. 1 ¶¶ 19, 20.)
CASE 0:26-cv-01049-DWF-DJF Doc. 7 Filed 02/09/26 Page 3 of 7

4
arguments in a pending Eighth Circuit case: Avila v. Bondi, No. 25-3248. (See Doc.
No. 5.) As this Court has explained on multiple occasions, Respondents’ interpretation of
§ 1225 contradicts the plain language of the statute. See Jose L.M.S. v. Bondi,
No. 26-cv-474, 2026 WL 185066, at *2 (D. Minn. Jan. 25, 2026); Omar E.F.G. v. Bondi,
No. 26-cv-451, 2026 WL 184571, at *2 (D. Minn. Jan. 23, 2026); Victor S.M. v. Noem,
No. 26-cv-400, 2026 WL 161445, at *2 (D. Minn. Jan. 21, 2026). Section 1225 applies
to “applicants for admission”—noncitizens who are either “present in the United States
who ha[ve] not been admitted or who arrive[] in the United States.” 8 U.S.C.
§ 1225(a)(1). Section 1226 applies where § 1225 is inapplicable and provides
immigration judges with the discretion to grant release on bond to noncitizens subject to
removal proceedings. See id. § 1226(a).
Here, Petitioner is not an arriving noncitizen because he has been in the United
States for two years. See Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281, 289 (2018) (noting that
§ 1226(a) applies to “certain aliens already in the country”). Petitioner is therefore
subject to the discretionary bond provisions of § 1226(a), not the mandatory bond
provisions of § 1225(b)(2).
Having found that Petitioner is being detained unlawfully, the question becomes
the correct remedy. A detainee being held pursuant to § 1226(a), as Petitioner is here,
must have been served an arrest warrant prior to detainment. 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a); see also
Ahmed M. v. Bondi, No. 25-cv-4711, 2026 WL 25627, at *3 (D. Minn. Jan. 5, 2026)
(collecting cases). There is no evidence that Respondents had a warrant to arrest
Petitioner. And after being given the opportunity to explain the true cause of Petitioner’s
CASE 0:26-cv-01049-DWF-DJF Doc. 7 Filed 02/09/26 Page 4 of 7

5
detainment and provide documents of such (see Doc. No. 3), Respondents did not do so,
(see Doc. No. 5). The Court therefore concludes that Petitioner was arrested without a
warrant. The remedy for a warrantless arrest is immediate release. 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.” (citation
omitted)).
In addition, the Court is troubled by Respondents’ potential noncompliance with
its February 4th Order, wherein the Court specifically enjoined Respondents from
moving Petitioner from this District pending further orders from the Court. In its motion
to show cause, Petitioner laid out a plausible timeline where Petitioner was moved to a
detention facility in Texas after the Court prohibited just that. (See Doc. No. 4.)
Respondents have not contested that timeline. Therefore, the Court will grant
Petitioner’s motion to show cause as detailed below.
ORDER
Based on the foregoing and the record in this case, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED
that:
1. 	Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. [1]) is
GRANTED.
2. 	The Court DECLARES that Petitioner’s current detention is unlawful
under the Constitution and laws of the United States.
3. 	Respondents are ORDERED to release Petitioner from custody
immediately.
CASE 0:26-cv-01049-DWF-DJF Doc. 7 Filed 02/09/26 Page 5 of 7

6
4. 	Within three (3) days of the date of this Order, Respondents shall provide
the Court with a status update confirming Petitioner’s release.
5. 	Respondents are directed to release Petitioner:
a. 	In Minnesota;
b. 	With all personal documents and belongings, such as his driver’s
license, passport, other immigration documents, and cell phone;
c. 	Without any conditions on release, including but not limited to
requiring Petitioner to sign an “Order of Release on Recognizance” or requiring
Petitioner to enroll and complete an “Alternatives to Detention” program;
d. 	Without any tracking devices; and
e. 	With all clothing and outerwear he was wearing at the time of
detention, or other proper winter attire.
6. 	Respondents shall provide reasonable advance notice to counsel to arrange
for a safe release of Petitioner.
7. 	Respondents are ENJOINED from re-detaining Petitioner under this same
statutory theory, absent materially changed circumstances.
8. 	Within thirty (30) days of final judgment in this action, Petitioner may
move to recover attorneys’ fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act,
28 U.S.C. § 2412.
9. 	Petitioner’s emergency motion to show cause (Doc. No. [4]) is GRANTED
as follows:
CASE 0:26-cv-01049-DWF-DJF Doc. 7 Filed 02/09/26 Page 6 of 7

7
a. 	By 12:00 p.m. CT on Tuesday, February 17, 2026, Respondents shall
file a memorandum explaining their failure to comply with this Court’s order dated
February 4, 2026, by transferring Petitioner to Texas after its entry. (Doc. No. [3].)
In the memorandum, Respondents shall:
i. 	Outline the timeline from Petitioner’s arrest to Petitioner’s
transfer to Texas;
ii. 	Identify the official(s) responsible for Petitioner’s transfer
from Minnesota to Texas;
iii. 	Attach any documentation of Petitioner’s transfer;
iv. 	Produce any documentation of policies, processes, and
procedures for transferring individuals detained as a part of Operation
Metro Surge outside of Minnesota; and
v. 	Show cause why further remedial action should not be
imposed.
b. 	Petitioner may file a reply by 12:00 p.m. CT on Friday, February 20,
2026.
c. 	The Court will determine whether a hearing is necessary after this
matter is fully brief.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: February 9, 2026 	s/Donovan W. Frank
DONOVAN W. FRANK
United States District Judge
CASE 0:26-cv-01049-DWF-DJF Doc. 7 Filed 02/09/26 Page 7 of 7