Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Jorge F.S.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. 26-1494 (DWF/EMB)
MEMORANDUM
OPINION AND ORDER
INTRODUCTION
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Jorge F.S.L.’s petition for a writ of
habeas corpus (the “Petition”). (Doc. No. 1.) Respondents filed a form response
asserting authority to detain Petitioner under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). (Doc. No. 6.) For
the reasons set forth below, the Court grants the Petition and orders Respondents to
release Petitioner immediately.
BACKGROUND
Petitioner is a citizen of Ecuador and a resident of Hudson, Wisconsin. (Doc.
No. 1 ¶¶ 7, 12.) He has lived in the United States for over fifteen years. (Id. ¶ 12.) He is
married to a U.S. Army veteran and has three daughters. (Id. ¶ 14.) He has no final order
of removal. (Id. ¶ 13.)
CASE 0:26-cv-01494-DWF-EMB Doc. 9 Filed 02/22/26 Page 1 of 6

2
On February 11, 2026, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”)
arrested Petitioner outside of his home. (Id. ¶ 15.) The ICE agents did not present a valid
warrant at the time of his arrest. (Id.) He was first taken to the Whipple Federal Building
at Fort Snelling in Minnesota. (Id. ¶ 19.) He was transferred out of Minnesota on
February 12, 2026.1 (Id. ¶¶ 7, 19.) He is currently in ICE detention at the ERO El Paso
Camp East Montana in El Paso, Texas. 2 (Id.; Online Detainee Locator System, U.S.
Immigr. & Customs Enf’t, https://locator.ice.gov/odls/#/search (last visited Feb. 20,
2026).)
Petitioner filed the Petition on February 17, 2026. (Doc. No. 1 at 19.) 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
1 	The Court ordered Respondents to return Petitioner to Minnesota on February 18,
2026. (Doc. No. 4.) Respondents have not complied with that order. The Court will not
order contempt proceedings at this time, so long as Petitioner is promptly returned to
Minnesota and released.
Further, Judge Nancy E. Brasel entered a Temporary Restraining Order on
February 12, 2026, at 5:00 p.m. in Advocates for Human Rights v. U.S. Department of
Homeland Security (the “TRO”). No. 26-cv-749, 2026 WL 404457 (D. Minn. Feb. 12,
2026). Based on Petitioner’s allegation that he was transferred to Texas on the evening
of February 12, 2026, it appears that Respondents violated the TRO. (See Doc. No. 1
¶ 21.)
2 	Respondents do not challenge the Court’s jurisdiction to hear this Petition. (See
Doc. No. 6.) Therefore, the issue is waived. See Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426,
451-52 (2004) (Kennedy, J., concurring) (explaining that “the question of the proper
location for a habeas petition is best understood as a question of personal jurisdiction or
venue” and that objections to the filing location can be waived); Mathena v. United
States, 577 F.3d 943, 946 n.3 (8th Cir. 2009) (discussing waiver of challenges to the
filing location of a habeas petition).
CASE 0:26-cv-01494-DWF-EMB Doc. 9 Filed 02/22/26 Page 2 of 6

3
the Administrative Procedure Act. (Id. ¶¶ 31-47.) Petitioner requests, among other
things, release from detention or an order requiring Respondents to provide him with a
bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). (Id. at 18.) On February 18, 2026, the Court
ordered Respondents to answer the Petition on or before February 20, 2026, at 12:00 p.m.
CT. (Doc. No. 4.) Respondents timely filed a form response. (Doc. No. 6.)
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 response, arguing that Petitioner is subject to mandatory
detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2), and pointing the Court to their arguments in a
pending Eighth Circuit case: Avila v. Bondi, No. 25-3248. (Doc. No. 6.) 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
CASE 0:26-cv-01494-DWF-EMB Doc. 9 Filed 02/22/26 Page 3 of 6

4
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 over fifteen 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 detention. 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
detention and provide documents of such (see Doc. No. 4), Respondents did not do so,
(see Doc. No. 6). 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)).
CASE 0:26-cv-01494-DWF-EMB Doc. 9 Filed 02/22/26 Page 4 of 6

5
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.
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 in and complete an “Alternatives to Detention” program;
d. 	Without any tracking devices or use of a tracking application; and
e. 	With all clothing and outerwear he was wearing at the time of
detention, or other proper winter attire.
CASE 0:26-cv-01494-DWF-EMB Doc. 9 Filed 02/22/26 Page 5 of 6

6
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.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: February 22, 2026 	s/Donovan W. Frank
DONOVAN W. FRANK
United States District Judge
CASE 0:26-cv-01494-DWF-EMB Doc. 9 Filed 02/22/26 Page 6 of 6