Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Cameron L.Y. Giebink, WILSON LAW GROUP, 3019 Minnehaha Avenue,
Minneapolis, MN 55406, for Petitioner.
David W. Fuller and Pedro Del Valle, IV, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S
OFFICE, 300 South Fourth Street, Suite 600, Minneapolis, MN 55415, for
Federal Respondents.
Petitioner Berman J.P.H. is a citizen of Nicaragua who is currently in Immigration
and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) custody in Minnesota. On April 2, 2026, Petitioner filed
BERMAN J.P.H.,
Petitioner,
v.
DAREN K. MARGOLIN, Director, Executive
Office for Immigration Review;
MARKWAYNE 	MULLIN, 	Secretary, 	U.S.
Department of Homeland Security;
TODD 	M. 	LYONS, 	Acting 	Director,
Immigration and Customs Enforcement;
DAVID EASTERWOOD, Acting Director, St.
Paul Field Office Immigration and Customs
Enforcement; and
ERIC 	TOLLEFSON, 	Sherriff, 	Kandiyohi
County,
Respondents
Civil No. 26-2131 (JRT/EMB)
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
GRANTING PETITION FOR WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS
CASE 0:26-cv-02131-JRT-EMB Doc. 12 Filed 05/06/26 Page 1 of 6

-2-
a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus alleging that his arrest and continued detention
violate the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
The Court concludes that Petitioner’s arrest and detention violate his Fifth
Amendment right to procedural due process. The Court will grant the petition and will
order that Petitioner receive an individualized bond hearing.
BACKGROUND
I. 	FACTS
Petitioner is a citizen of Nicaragua. (Pet. Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Pet.”) ¶¶ 11, 26,
Apr. 2, 2026, Docket No. 1.) He entered the United States without inspection in December
2018. (Pet. ¶ 27.) Petitioner filed an application for asylum on January 15, 2024, which
remains pending. (Pet. ¶¶ 29–30.) On October 22, 2024, United States Citizenship and
Immigration Services (USCIS) issued Petitioner a work permit, which is valid through
October 21, 2029. (Id. ¶ 31.)
On March 26, 2026, Respondents took Petitioner Palacios Herrera into custody
after he posted bond following a Driving While Impaired (DWI) arrest in Minnesota. (Id.
¶ 33.)
II. 	PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On April 2, 2026, Petitioner filed a Verified Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus,
contending that his detention is unlawful under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth
Amendment. 	The 	Court directed 	Respondents to 	file 	a 	reasoned 	memorandum
CASE 0:26-cv-02131-JRT-EMB Doc. 12 Filed 05/06/26 Page 2 of 6

-3-
responding to Petitioner’s claims. 	(Docket No. 3.) 	Respondents timely filed their
response, and Petitioner replied. (Docket Nos. 5, 7.)
Because Respondents indicated in their response that Petitioner had a scheduled
appearance with an immigration judge on April 9, 2026, the Court ordered the parties to
provide an update. (See Docket No. 8.) After the immigration hearing was continued and
reset for April 30, 2026 (see Docket No. 9), the Court ordered a further update in this
matter (Docket No. 10). According to the latest update from the parties, a final hearing
on Petitioner’s asylum application is set for June 23, 2026. (Docket No. 11.)
DISCUSSION
“[A]bsent suspension” by Congress, the Constitution guarantees that the “writ of
habeas corpus remains available to every individual detained within the United States.”
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 525 (2004) (citing U.S. Const. art. 1, § 9, cl. 2). District
courts can provide habeas relief to persons detained in violation of the Constitution or
laws of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3).
The Fifth Amendment guarantees that “[n]o person shall . . . be deprived of life,
liberty, or property, without due process of law[.]” 	U.S. Const. amend. V. 	“[T]he Due
Process Clause applies to all ‘persons’ within the United States, including [noncitizens],
whether their presence here is lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent.” Zadvydas v.
Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 693 (2001). 	“[G]overnment detention violates [the Due Process]
Clause unless the detention is ordered in a criminal proceeding with adequate procedural
CASE 0:26-cv-02131-JRT-EMB Doc. 12 Filed 05/06/26 Page 3 of 6

-4-
protections . . . or, in certain special and ‘narrow’ nonpunitive ‘circumstances’[.]” Id. at
690 (quoting Foucha v. Louisiana, 504 U.S. 71, 80 (1992)).
Here, 	Respondents’ 	asserted 	basis 	for 	detaining 	Petitioner 	is 	28 	U.S.C.
§ 1225(b)(2)(A), which provides for mandatory detention for “applicant[s] for admission”
into the United States. See Avila v. Bondi, 170 F.4th 1128, 1138 (8 th Cir. 2026) (concluding
that an individual who, like the Petitioner in this case, was already present in the United
States, was nevertheless an “applicant for admission” and is subject to mandatory
detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A)). In responding to Petitioner’s procedural due process
claim, Respondents argue that the Constitution does not entitle Petitioner to any
additional procedural protections beyond those granted under the statute, and that
§ 1225(b)(2)(A) expressly authorizes Petitioner’s detention without the opportunity to
post bond.
For the reasons set forth in Axel J.M.C., v. Stanski, Civil No. 26-2281, 2026 WL
1171344 (D. Minn. Apr. 29, 2026), the Court concludes that the balancing test set forth in
Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976), applies to Petitioner’s due process claim. Here,
as in Axel, Petitioner’s liberty interest is significant, the risk of erroneous deprivation of
Petitioner’s liberty is high, and the burden the Government would bear in providing an
individualized bond hearing is low.
Because the Court concludes that Petitioner’s due process claim under the Fifth
Amendment prevails, the Court will grant Petitioner Berman J.P.H.’s petition for writ of
CASE 0:26-cv-02131-JRT-EMB Doc. 12 Filed 05/06/26 Page 4 of 6

-5-
habeas corpus to the extent he seeks a bond hearing. If Respondents are unable to hold
a bond hearing within 7 days of this order, the Court will direct that the Petitioner be
released.
ORDER
Based on the foregoing, and all the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner Berman J.P.H.’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
(Docket No. [1]) is GRANTED as follows:
1. 	Petitioner's detention without an individualized bond hearing violates his rights
under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment;
2. 	Respondents shall provide Petitioner with an individualized bond hearing within 7
days of the date of this Order, in which the parties will be allowed to present
evidence and argument about whether Petitioner is a danger to the community
and presents a flight risk if not detained;
3. 	If Respondents do not provide Petitioner with an individualized bond hearing as
required herein, Petitioner must be immediately released from detention; and
4. 	By 5:00 P.M. on May 14, 2026, the parties shall provide the Court with a status
update concerning the results of any bond hearing conducted pursuant to this
Order, or if no bond hearing was held, advise the Court regarding Petitioner's
release. 	Further, the parties shall advise the Court at that time whether any
CASE 0:26-cv-02131-JRT-EMB Doc. 12 Filed 05/06/26 Page 5 of 6

-6-
additional proceedings in this matter are required and submit any proposals for
the scope of further litigation.
DATED: May 6, 2026 	_____/s/ John R. Tunheim_____
at Minneapolis, Minnesota. 	JOHN R. TUNHEIM
United States District Judge
CASE 0:26-cv-02131-JRT-EMB Doc. 12 Filed 05/06/26 Page 6 of 6