Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Frank V.,
Petitioner,
v.
Samuel J. Olson, Field Office Director of
Enforcement and Removal Operations, St.
Paul Field Office, Immigration and Customs
Enforcement; Kristi Noem, in her official
capacity as Secretary of the U.S.
Department of Homeland Security; Todd
Lyons, in his official capacity as acting
director of U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement; Pam Bondi, in her official
capacity as Attorney General of the United
States; and Eric Tollefson, Kandiyohi
County Jail Sheriff,
Respondents.
File No. 26-CV-0044 (JMB/DTS)
ORDER
Evan Grant Brown and Gloria Leticia Contreras Edin, Contreras Edin Law, PA, St. Paul,
MN, for Frank V.
Lucas B. Draisey and Ana H. Voss, United States Attorney’s Office, Minneapolis, MN, for
Respondents Samuel J. Olson, Kristi Noem, Todd Lyons, and Pamela Bondi.
Respondent Eric Tollefson, self-represented.
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Frank V.’s1 Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus 	(“Petition”) 	under 	28 	U.S.C. 	§ 2241. 	(Doc. 	No. 	1 	[hereinafter, 	“Pet.”].)
1 This District has adopted a policy of using only the first name and last initial of any
nongovernmental parties in immigration cases.
CASE 0:26-cv-00044-JMB-DTS Doc. 12 Filed 01/09/26 Page 1 of 8

2
Respondents Samuel J. Olson, Kristi Noem, Todd Lyons, Pamela Bondi, and Eric
Tollefson (together, “Respondents”) oppose the Petition. For the reasons explained below,
the Court grants the Petition.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. 	Frank V. is a citizen and national of Colombia. 	(Doc. No. 11 [hereinafter,
“Campbell Decl.”] at ¶ 5.)
2. 	Frank V. entered the United States in August 2018 with an authorized tourist
visa. (Pet. ¶ 2; Campbell Decl. ¶ 6.)
3. 	On March 15, 2019, Frank V. was arrested and taken into Immigration and
Customs Enforcement (ICE) custody under the charge of Overstaying a Valid Visa under
INA 237(a)(1)(B) (codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(B)). (Pet. ¶ 3; Campbell Decl. ¶ 7.)
4. 	On April 3, 2019, an Immigration Judge granted Frank V. bond pursuant to
a discretionary 1226(a) bond hearing, noting that Frank V. was released on bond “per
parties’ stipulation.” (Doc. No. 1-4; see also Pet. ¶ 50.) Frank V. was released on bond on
April 5, 2019. (Campbell Decl. ¶ 8.)
5. 	The order for release on bond does not list or refer to any conditions of
release. 	(Doc. 11-1 at 8 (April 3, 2019 Order of the Immigration Judge with Respect to
Custody).) Nor does an earlier order for release on bond from the 2019 proceedings. (Doc.
No. 11-1 at 3 (March 15, 2019 Notice of Custody Determination).)
6. 	Frank V. has not violated any conditions of release. (Pet. ¶ 61.)
7. 	Frank V. has a pending asylum claim. (Id. ¶ 54.)
CASE 0:26-cv-00044-JMB-DTS Doc. 12 Filed 01/09/26 Page 2 of 8

3
8. 	Frank V. is currently in removal proceedings, and there has not yet been any
order of removal entered against him. (See id. ¶ 53.)
9. 	On November 12, 2025, Frank V. reported to ICE as directed for a check-in.
(See Campbell Decl. ¶ 9.)2 ICE officials conducted a records check and found that he had
incurred five minor traffic-related citations since he was released on bond in 2019. (Id.)
10. 	ICE then served Frank V. with a Warrant for Arrest of Alien. (Doc. No. 11-
1 at 11 (“On November 12, 2025, [Frank V.] was served with a Warrant of Alien Arrest
. . . . [He] was processed administratively for 8 USC 1182(a) Removal Proceedings.”); id.
at 12.) 	The warrant stated that it had been determined that there was probable cause to
believe that Frank V. is removable from the United States. 	(Id. at 12.) 	The warrant for
arrest did not refer to any violation of conditions of supervised release. (See id.)
11. 	In a Notice of Custody Determination form that was provided to and signed
by Frank V. on November 12, 2025, he requested a bond hearing by noting on the form his
“request [for] an immigration judge review of this custody determination.” (Id. at 13.)
12. 	The next day, ICE provided notice to Frank V. that it was cancelling the bond
he had posted on April 5, 2019 because “the conditions of the immigration bond . . . have
been satisfied.” (Id. at 14.)
2 There is no evidence in the record concerning how frequently Frank V. reported to ICE
for check-in appointments. 	There is no suggestion that Frank V. ever missed any
appointments since his release in 2019.
CASE 0:26-cv-00044-JMB-DTS Doc. 12 Filed 01/09/26 Page 3 of 8

4
13. 	At some point between November 12 and December 10, 2025,3 Frank V. was
arrested. He remains in ICE custody at the Kandiyohi County Jail. (Pet. ¶ 1.)
14. 	On January 5, 2026, Frank V. filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 	(Pet.) 	Frank V. seeks, at a minimum, a bond hearing
pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). 	(Id. ¶¶ 59–60.) 	He also asserts in Count I that he “was
granted release on bond and has not violated his conditions of release” and that his “arrest
and continuing detention are therefore unlawful.” (Id. ¶¶ 61–62.) Frank V. also requests
an order to immediately release him based on allegations that his detention violates
applicable regulations, the Immigration and Nationality Act, the due process clause of the
Fifth Amendment, and the Administrative Procedure Act. (Id. ¶¶ 61–82; see also id. at 20
(Prayer for Relief).)
15. 	On January 6, 2026, the Court ordered Respondents to file a response to each
count of the Petition by January 8, 2026 at 11:00 a.m. (Doc. No. 7.) Respondents timely
responded. (Doc. Nos. 10–11.) Respondents do not seek a hearing on the Petition. (Doc.
No. 10 at 4.)
DISCUSSION
For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants the Petition and orders Frank V.’s
immediate release.
3 Respondents’ brief and the Campbell Declaration refer to November 12, 2025, as the start
of Frank V.’s custodial detention. 	(Doc. No. 10 at 4; see Campbell Decl. ¶ 9.) 	Both the
Petition and Frank V.’s request for bond hearing refer to December 10, 2025, as the date
of Frank V.’s arrest and beginning of his period of detention. (Pet. ¶ 5; Doc. No. 11-2 at
2.) 	For purposes of ruling on the Petition, the Court need not determine which date is
correct.
CASE 0:26-cv-00044-JMB-DTS Doc. 12 Filed 01/09/26 Page 4 of 8

5
A. 	Constitutional Guarantee of Habeas Review and Due Process
As a threshold matter, the Court notes that a writ of habeas corpus may be granted
to any person who demonstrates he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws of
the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3); Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 525 (2004)
(concluding that the Constitution guarantees that the writ of habeas corpus is “available to
every individual detained within the United States” (citing U.S. Const., Art. I, § 9, cl. 2));
Aditya W.H. v. Trump, 782 F. Supp. 3d 691, 702 (D. Minn. 2025). For most of the nation’s
history, habeas review “has remained a critical check on the Executive, ensuring that it
does not detain individuals except in accordance with law.” 	Hamdi, 542 U.S. at 525
(quotation omitted). The right to challenge the legality of a person’s confinement through
a petition for a writ of habeas corpus “extends to . . . immigration-related detention.” Deng
Chol A. v. Barr, 455 F. Supp. 3d 896, 900–01 (D. Minn. 2020) (citation omitted). 	The
petitioner bears the burden of proving that his detention is illegal by a preponderance of
evidence. 	Jose J.O.E. v. Bondi, No. 25-CV-3051 (ECT/DJF), 2025 WL 2466670, at *5
(D. Minn. Aug. 27, 2025) (citing Aditya W.H., 782 F. Supp. 3d at 703).
B. 	Applicability of Section 1226
Respondents concede that Frank V. is entitled to a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1226(a). (Doc. No. 10 at 1.) Therefore, even if the Court were not granting the request
for Frank V.’s immediate release as set forth below, the Court would grant the request for
CASE 0:26-cv-00044-JMB-DTS Doc. 12 Filed 01/09/26 Page 5 of 8

6
a prompt bond redetermination hearing, as Respondents do not dispute that a bond hearing
is required by law.4
C. 	Legality of Arrest and Request for Immediate Release
The Court is also convinced that on this record, Respondents’ re-detention of Frank
V. was unlawful and thus orders his immediate release.
To begin, the Court considers Frank V.’s request for release on the basis of an illegal
arrest to be unopposed. 	The Court ordered Respondents to “respond to each count of
Petitioner’s Habeas Petition . . . .” (Doc. No. 7.) In Count I of the Petition, Frank V. alleges
that he “was granted release on bond and has not violated his conditions of release” and
that his “arrest and continuing detention are therefore unlawful.” (Id. ¶¶ 61–62.) Although
portions of the declaration attached to the response offer one explanation for Frank V.’s
arrest (Campbell Decl. ¶ 9), Respondents do not present any well-developed legal argument
concerning the lawfulness of Frank V.’s arrest. 	To be clear, Respondents’ sole legal
argument is that the Court should deny the Petition as moot because Frank V. will be
provided a bond hearing. (See Doc. No. 10 at 3–4.) Such an argument has no bearing on
Count I of the Petition to the extent it challenges Frank V.’s arrest, and the Court grants
the Petition as unopposed for this reason.
Separately and independently, the Court also concludes that the explanation
provided in the Campbell Declaration is unsupported by the record presented. 	The
4 Respondents state that “Petitioner did not request a bond hearing until January 5th.” (Doc.
No. 10 at 3.) This statement is incorrect. 	To the contrary, Frank V. requested a custody
redetermination hearing on November 12, 2025—57 days ago. (Doc. No. 11-1 at 13.)
CASE 0:26-cv-00044-JMB-DTS Doc. 12 Filed 01/09/26 Page 6 of 8

7
declaration states that “[o]ne of the conditions of release on bond is to remain law abiding.”
(Campbell Decl. ¶ 9.) 	This paragraph also states that “[r]ecords checks indicated [Frank
V.] had accumulated five driving citations since his release on bond” and that “since [Frank
V.] violated that condition[,] ICE arrested him and canceled his bond.” (Id.) Aside from
this self-serving declaratory statement, however, the record contains no evidence of any
conditions of release. There are two orders releasing Frank V. on bond that are included
in the record. (See Doc. 11-1 at 3 (March 15, 2019 Notice of Custody Determination) and
8 (April 3, 2019 Order of the Immigration Judge with Respect to Custody).) 	Neither
document contains conditions of release. On their face, and other than the bond amount,
both release orders appear to be unconditional. 	Moreover, the warrant that Respondents
issued on November 12, 2025, makes no reference to violations of conditions of supervised
release. (Id. at 12.)
Finally, the Court is concerned that Respondents are using minor traffic-related
citations as an after-the-fact justification for detaining Frank V. It is well-established that
citations for speeding and driving without a license are not criminal offenses. N.D. Cent.
Code § 39-06.1-02 (establishing that a person charged with speeding, driving without a
license, or other moving violations in North Dakota is “deemed to be charged with a
noncriminal offense”); see also Morrell v. Hjelle, 128 N.W.2d 728, 730 (N.D. 1964)
(affirming decision to reverse suspension of driver’s license because five previous
instances of speeding were not “serious” offenses that could justify suspension.) 	Absent
some additional information regarding these minor traffic-related citations, the Court
cannot agree that this conduct could constitute a violation of a condition of release, even
CASE 0:26-cv-00044-JMB-DTS Doc. 12 Filed 01/09/26 Page 7 of 8

8
assuming that the record presented indicated such a condition had been imposed.
Thus, the Court concludes that Respondents arrest and re-detention of Frank V. was
unlawful5 The Court accordingly orders his immediate release.6
ORDER
Based on the foregoing, and on all of the files, records, and proceedings herein,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the Petition (Doc. No. 1) is GRANTED as follows:
1. 	Respondents are ORDERED to release Petitioner Frank V. from custody
immediately, and in any event no later than 5:00 p.m. CT on January 9, 2026,
subject to and in accordance with his preexisting order of release dated April
3, 2019.
2. 	On or before 11:00 a.m. CT on January 12, 2026, Respondents shall provide
the Court with a status update confirming that Petitioner was released from
custody in accordance with this Order.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: January 9, 2026 	/s/ Jeffrey M. Bryan
Judge Jeffrey M. Bryan
United States District Court
5 To be sure, applicable regulations speak of the agency’s “discretion” to revoke release.
See 8 C.F.R. § 236.1(c)(9). 	Respondents do not argue, however, that the re-detention of
Frank V. was simply a matter of exercising blanket discretion. Thus, the Court need not
assess, at this juncture, the merits of a position that the applicable statute and regulations
provide unbounded discretionary authority to revoke previously authorized release or the
constitutionality of such unlimited discretion.
6 The Court does not address Frank V.’s request for an award of fees and costs under the
Equal Access to Justice Act; he may move separately for such relief within 30 days of final
judgment in this action. 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(B).
CASE 0:26-cv-00044-JMB-DTS Doc. 12 Filed 01/09/26 Page 8 of 8