Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
CELIA N.C.S.,
Petitioner,
v.
PAMELA BONDI, United States Attorney
General;
KRISTI NOEM, Secretary, U.S. Department
of Homeland Security;
TODD 	M. 	LYONS, 	Acting 	Director,
Immigration and Customs Enforcement;
and
DAVID EASTERWOOD, Acting Director, St.
Paul Field Office Immigration and Customs
Enforcement
Respondents.
Civil No. 26-1447 (JRT/DTS)
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
GRANTING PETITION FOR WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS
M. Boulette, BOULETTE LAW, 330 Second Avenue, Suite 2200, Minneapolis,
MN 55401, for Petitioner.
David W. Fuller, Trevor Brown, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, 300
South Fourth Street, Suite 600, Minneapolis, MN 55415 for Respondents.
Petitioner Celia N.C.S. was detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
(“ICE”) officials on February 15, 2026. (Verified Pet. for Writ of Habeas Corpus ¶ 15, Feb.
15, 2026, Docket No. 1.) 	The same day, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas
CASE 0:26-cv-01447-JRT-DTS Doc. 7 Filed 02/18/26 Page 1 of 4

- 2 -
corpus, challenging the lawfulness of her detention. (Id.) Because the Court concludes
that Petitioner is being detained unlawfully, the Court will grant the petition and order
Petitioner’s immediate release.
DISCUSSION
Petitioner Celia N.C.S. is a citizen of Ecuador and a resident of Baldwin, Wisconsin.
(Pet. ¶¶ 7, 12.) To the best of Petitioner’s counsel’s knowledge, Petitioner is being held
at the Bishop Henry Whipple Federal Building in Minneapolis, Minnesota. (Id. ¶ 7.)
Respondents rely on 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) to justify Petitioner’s detention. 	The
Court rejects that justification. 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), and Romero Santuario v.
Bondi, Civ. 25-4296, 2025 WL 3469577 (D. Minn, Dec. 2, 2025). Section 1225(b)(2) does
not authorize the mandatory detention of an individual already present in the United
States.
The Court therefore turns to the proper remedy. 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 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,
CASE 0:26-cv-01447-JRT-DTS Doc. 7 Filed 02/18/26 Page 2 of 4

- 3 -
693 (2008) (“Habeas is at its core a remedy for unlawful executive detention. . . . The
typical remedy for such detention is, of course, release.”).
The Court will grant Celia N.C.S.’s petition for writ of habeas corpus and order that
he be released from custody.
ORDER
Based on the foregoing, and all the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED that
1. 	Petitioner Celia N.C.S.’s Verified 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 being detained outside 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 is being detained 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-01447-JRT-DTS Doc. 7 Filed 02/18/26 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 	license, 	passports, 	or 	immigration 	documents, 	and 	without
conditions such as location tracking devices.
f. 	Respondents are ENJOINED from re-detaining Petitioner under this same
statutory theory, absent materially changed circumstances.
g. 	Both 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 21,
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 18, 2026
at Minneapolis, Minnesota. 	JOHN R. TUNHEIM
Time: 7:47 p.m. 	United States District Judge
CASE 0:26-cv-01447-JRT-DTS Doc. 7 Filed 02/18/26 Page 4 of 4