Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Manuel N.M.,
Petitioner,
v.
Kristi Noem, et al.,
Respondents.
No. 26-cv-224 (MJD/DJF)
REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION
This action is before the Court on Petitioner Manuel N.M.’s Petition for a writ of habeas
corpus (“Petition”). U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) detained Petitioner on
January 12, 2026 at an ICE detention facility in Minnesota. Petitioner states that he is legally
present in the United States based on T Nonimmigrant Status. He seeks an order directing
Respondents to either release him immediately or provide him with a bond hearing pursuant to 8
U.S.C. § 1226(a). Petitioner also seeks an order awarding him his attorney’s fees and costs
pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), as amended, 28 U.S.C. § 2412. For the
reasons given below, the Court recommends that the Petition be granted, Respondents be ordered
to release Petitioner, and Petitioner be awarded his attorney’s fees and costs.
BACKGROUND
Petitioner is a national of Ecuador who entered the United States in around 2004 (ECF No.
1 ¶ 4), presumably without legal authorization. On March 13, 2023, however, U.S. Citizenship
and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) approved Petitioner for “T Nonimmigrant Status”. (Id.) T
nonimmigrant status, also called a “T Visa”, is a relatively rare admission status available to
noncitizens who: (1.) are victims of a severe form of human trafficking; and (2.) assist law
CASE 0:26-cv-00224-MJD-DJF Doc. 7 Filed 01/23/26 Page 1 of 9

2
enforcement in the detection, investigation, or prosecution of such trafficking. See USCIS,
Questions and Answers: Victims of Human Trafficking, T Nonimmigrant Status.1 The United
States approves only 5,000 T-Nonimmigrant Status applications per year. Id. T Visa recipients
are eligible for work authorization and may apply for adjustment of status to legal permanent
residence after three years if they remain physically present in the United States. Id. USCIS deems
T Visa recipients to be lawfully admitted into the United States. Id. (“After receiving a T visa,
victims may be eligible for permanent residence if they have been continuously physically present
in the United States for 3 years after they were first lawfully admitted as a T nonimmigrant.”)
(emphasis added.) Petitioner’s T Visa is valid from March 13, 2023 through March 12, 2027.
(ECF No. 1 ¶ 4.) Respondents have proffered no evidence to suggest Petitioner committed any
criminal offenses or that his T Visa was revoked for any other reason. Respondents further do not
allege that they have obtained an order of removal or even initiated removal proceedings against
Petitioner. Based on this record the Court concludes that Petitioner was legally admitted on March
13, 2023 and currently remains in legal admission status.
Notwithstanding Petitioner’s legal status, ICE arrested Petitioner and detained him on
January 12, 2026. (Id. ¶ 2.) They detained him, at least initially, at an ICE detention facility at Ft.
Snelling in Minnesota. (Id. ¶ 5 at 3.2) Before he was detained, Petitioner lived in Minneapolis,
Minnesota with his wife and children. (Id.)
1 Available at: https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/victims-of-human-trafficking-and-
other-crimes/victims-of-human-trafficking-t-nonimmigrant-status/questions-and-answers-vic-
tims-of-human-trafficking-t-nonimmigrant-status (last visited Jan. 23, 2026).
2 The Petition contains two different paragraphs numbered “5”, on pages 2 and 3. To
address this clerical error, the Court refers to the page number in addition to the paragraph number.
CASE 0:26-cv-00224-MJD-DJF Doc. 7 Filed 01/23/26 Page 2 of 9

3
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Petitioner filed his Petition on January 13, 2026. (ECF No. 1.) The Court issued an Order
to Show Cause that same day directing Respondents to file an Answer by January 15, 2026,
including “[s]uch affidavits and exhibits as are needed to establish the lawfulness and correct
duration of Petitioner’s detention in light of the issues raised in the habeas petition.” (ECF No. 3.)
The Order further enjoined Respondents from removing Petitioner from the District of Minnesota
until a final decision is made. (Id.)
On January 16, 2026, counsel for Respondents sent an email to the Court requesting an
Order of dismissal on the ground that Petitioner had been released. That same day, Petitioner's
counsel emailed the Court, stating that ICE had seized Petitioner’s employment authorization
documents and was refusing to return them. He further stated that if the parties could not resolve
that issue, he might seek to amend his Petition to request that the documents be returned. The
Court responded by setting a briefing schedule and ordering the parties to brief the disputed issues.
(ECF No. 4.) Respondents’ brief, filed January 20, 2026, states vaguely that Respondents
“transferred” him to El Paso, Texas on January 12, 2026 “where she [sic] remains,” and requests
dismissal with prejudice. (ECF No. 5.) Though Respondents’ brief purports to attach a supporting
declaration, no declaration is attached, and the brief contains no citations to authority or argument
supporting Respondents’ request for dismissal with prejudice. (Id.) Respondents’ brief does not
explicitly state whether Petitioner was released after his transfer, or whether—as is likely—he is
still in custody, such that Respondents’ previous request for dismissal was based on a
misrepresentation to the Court. Respondents’ brief furthermore fails to address their position
regarding Petitioner’s request that they return his employment authorization documents.
CASE 0:26-cv-00224-MJD-DJF Doc. 7 Filed 01/23/26 Page 3 of 9

4
Finding Respondents’ brief was nonresponsive to the Court’s briefing order (ECF No. 4),
the Court ordered Respondents to file a letter by January 22, 2026: (1.) clarifying whether
Petitioner is currently detained and whether Respondents previously misrepresented his release
status; and (2.) either confirming that Petitioner's employment authorization documents have been
returned or stating Respondents’ position as to why they should not be returned to him
immediately. (ECF No. 6.) The Court’s deadline for Respondents to file the letter has now passed
and they have not complied. Thus, they have still failed to state clearly on the record whether
Petitioner has been released and whether Petitioner’s employment documents have been, or will
be, returned. Because the Court concludes, for the reasons set forth below, that insofar as Petitioner
has not been released Respondents are detaining him unlawfully, any further delay caused by
Respondent’s failure to respond to the Court’s Orders is unwarranted. The Court therefore
recommends that Respondents be ordered to release Petitioner immediately if they have not
already done so. Because the record regarding Plaintiff’s request to amend is not developed, the
Court recommends Plaintiff’s request to amend the Petition be denied without prejudice.
DISCUSSION
I. The Court has Jurisdiction to Consider the Petition.
Respondents’ brief suggests but does not squarely raise the question of whether Petitioner’s
alleged3 transfer to El Paso, Texas on January 12 divests this Court of jurisdiction to consider his
Petition filed one day later. (See ECF No. 5, arguing that because they transferred Petitioner to El
Paso on January 12, the Petition should be dismissed “with prejudice” as “moot”.) Since the Court
3 Because Respondents failed to submit the Declaration cited in their brief or any
documentation establishing exactly when the transfer took place, the Court cannot conclude that
the transfer took place before the Petition was filed as Respondents allege. But because the Court
finds it has jurisdiction even assuming Respondents’ allegation is true, it need not reach a
conclusive finding on this question.
CASE 0:26-cv-00224-MJD-DJF Doc. 7 Filed 01/23/26 Page 4 of 9

5
anticipates a potential objection to this Report and Recommendation on that ground, the Court
briefly addresses this issue. Other judges in this district have addressed the impact of a habeas
petitioner’s pre-petition transfer on the Court’s jurisdiction and denied Respondents’ motion to
dismiss on that ground. See, e.g., Aleksander B. v. Trump, No. 26-cv-170 (KMM/DJF) (D. Minn.
Jan. 22, 2026) (ECF No. 18 at 4-8). Under the “district of confinement” rule, a district court
generally has jurisdiction to consider a habeas petition only in the district where the detainee is
confined. Id. at 4 (citing Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 443 (2004)). In Aleksander B.,
however, the court held that an exception to this rule applies when a habeas petitioner is initially
arrested and detained in this District, ICE moves him without notice, the government has not been
forthcoming about his location, and his whereabouts are unknown despite counsel’s diligent
attempts to locate him. Id. at 5-8. The Court concludes that the same rationale applies here: ICE
transferred Petitioner from Minnesota to Texas without notice and his counsel had no way of
knowing where he was when counsel filed the Petition on his behalf. Indeed, from this record it
appears that even Respondents’ counsel may not have known about the transfer until Respondents
filed their brief on January 20. Finally, Respondents’ continued refusal to clarify whether
Petitioner was released or remains detained in Texas plainly illustrates their failure to be
forthcoming about his location. For these reasons, the Court concludes that Petitioner’s alleged
pre-Petition transfer to Texas does not divest it of jurisdiction to consider the Petition.
The Court further finds that Petitioner’s transfer to Texas does not render the Petition
“moot.” Respondents have avoided stating on the record that Petitioner is no longer detained. If
they have in fact released him, they should file a declaration and supporting documents
establishing the date, time and location of his release. Until they do so, the Court cannot conclude
that the Petition is moot.
CASE 0:26-cv-00224-MJD-DJF Doc. 7 Filed 01/23/26 Page 5 of 9

6
II. Petitioner’s Continued Detention is Unlawful.
Respondents cannot lawfully arrest and detain noncitizens without some legal basis for
doing so. Despite ample opportunity for briefing, Respondents have asserted no basis at all for
Petitioner’s arrest and detention in this case. Respondents’ waiver of any argument alleging a
basis for detention is alone sufficient grounds to warrant an order for Petitioner’s release.
Moreover, Petitioner alleges he has a valid, unexpired T Visa, and there is no information
to suggest otherwise. He has therefore been “admitted” to the United States. Detention of
noncitizens who have been admitted falls under 8 U.S.C. § 1226. See, e.g., Belasi D.S. v. Bondi,
et al., No. 25-cv-03682 (KMM/EMB) (Oct. 1, 2025) (ECF No. 14 at 13, “[Section] 1226 authorizes
the Government to detain certain aliens already in the country pending the outcome of removal
proceedings, while § 1225 provides for detention of those who are seeking admission into the
country.”) (cleaned up). To detain noncitizens under Section 1226, Respondents must have a
statutory basis for detention and must provide them with a bond hearing before an Immigration
Judge with the discretion to determine whether continued detention is appropriate. See 8 U.S.C. §
1226(a); Belasi, No. 25-cv-03682 (ECF No. 14 at 14); see also Yeferson G.C. v. Easterwood, No.
25-cv-4814 (MJD/DJF) (Jan. 21, 2026) (ECF No. 14 at 4-5). Here, there is no evidence in the
record to suggest Petitioner was provided with a bond hearing as required under that statute.
Furthermore, Section 1226 states that a person may be arrested and detained pursuant to its
provisions only upon issuance of an administrative warrant. 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a); see also Yeferson,
No. 25-cv-4815 (ECF No. 14 at 5-6); Ahmed M. v. Bondi, 25-cv-04711 (ECT/SGE) (ECF No. 8 at
7-8). Respondents produced no such warrant in this case despite the Court’s directive to produce
all such “affidavits and exhibits as are needed to establish the lawfulness and correct duration of
CASE 0:26-cv-00224-MJD-DJF Doc. 7 Filed 01/23/26 Page 6 of 9

7
Petitioner’s detention.” Because Respondents have failed to establish that Petitioner’s arrest and
detention is lawful, they should be ordered to release him immediately to the extent that he remains
in custody.
III. Attorney’s Fees Should be Awarded.
Petitioner requests an award of his attorney’s fees and costs under the Equal Access to
Justice Act (“EAJA”), as amended, 28 U.S.C. § 2412. Under the EAJA, a prevailing party may
obtain attorney’s fees only when the position of the United States was not “substantially justified.”
See Cornella v. Schweiker, 728 F.2d 978, 981-82 (8th Cir. 1984). Here, the Court recommends
granting all the relief Petitioner requests. He is therefore the “prevailing party.” Moreover, given
that Respondents have not even attempted to assert a lawful basis for arresting and detaining
Petitioner, the Court concludes that Respondents’ position is not substantially justified.
IV. Petitioner’s Request to Amend the Petition Should be Denied Without Prejudice.
In his email exchanges with the Court, Petitioner indicated he may seek to amend his
Petition to assert a demand that his employment authorization documents be returned. Petitioner’s
concern is valid: Respondents should return his employment authorization documents upon
releasing him as there appears to be no lawful basis to withhold them. But while Petitioner’s
demand is potentially meritorious, no motion to amend as yet has been filed. Therefore, neither
the legal nor factual grounds for it are developed on this record, and an immediate grant of the
Petition for release is otherwise warranted for the reasons set forth herein. Moreover, the Court
questions whether a petition for a writ of habeas corpus is the appropriate procedural vehicle for
Petitioner’s demand. See, e.g., Starnes v. Roy, No. 18-cv-0618-NEB-KMM, 2019 WL 8017854,
at *14 (D. Minn. Oct. 9, 2019), report and recommendation adopted, 2020 WL 888702 (D. Minn.
Feb. 24, 2020) (holding that claims for the return of seized property are not cognizable in habeas
CASE 0:26-cv-00224-MJD-DJF Doc. 7 Filed 01/23/26 Page 7 of 9

8
proceedings); Kruger v. Erikson, 77 F.3d 1071, 1073 (8th Cir. 1996) (“The essence
of habeas corpus is an attack by a [detainee] on the legality of [his] custody.”); see also Lazarus v.
Lynch, 671 F. App'x 651 (9th Cir. 2016) (finding court lacked jurisdiction to consider immigration
detainee’s challenge to withholding of documents because it implicated his removal proceedings);
But see da Silva v. LaForge, No. 25-cv-17095 (EP), 2026 WL 45165, at *4 (D.N.J. Jan. 7, 2026)
(holding court had authority to hear immigration petitioner’s challenge to his conditions of release,
which included ICE’s continued retention of his documents).
Because this question is unsettled and the record on this issue is wholly undeveloped,
amendment of the Petition at this juncture is not supported by good cause. The Court therefore
recommends that any request to amend the Petition be denied without prejudice, such that
Petitioner may assert his demand for the return of his authorization documents in a separate legal
proceeding if Respondents continue to withhold them without justification.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the foregoing, and on all the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS
HEREBY RECOMMENDED THAT:
1. Petitioner Manuel N.M.’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1) be
GRANTED;
2. Respondents be ordered to return Petitioner to Minnesota immediately if he is still in ICE
custody and release Petitioner upon his return;
4. Respondents be ordered to file a status update in seven days, confirming that they have
released Petitioner, and stating the date, time and location of his release; and
5. Respondents be ordered to reimburse Petitioner his reasonable costs and fees pursuant to
the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412.
CASE 0:26-cv-00224-MJD-DJF Doc. 7 Filed 01/23/26 Page 8 of 9

9
Dated: January 23, 2026 s/ Dulce J. Foster
DULCE J. FOSTER
United States Magistrate Judge
NOTICE
Filing Objections: This Report and Recommendation is not an order or judgment of the District
Court and is therefore not appealable directly to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Under Local Rule 72.2(b)(1), “a party may file and serve specific written objections to a magistrate
judge’s proposed finding and recommendations within 14 days after being served a copy” of the
Report and Recommendation. A party may respond to those objections within 14 days after being
served a copy of the objections. See Local Rule 72.2(b)(2). All objections and responses must
comply with the word or line limits set forth in Local Rule 72.2(c).
CASE 0:26-cv-00224-MJD-DJF Doc. 7 Filed 01/23/26 Page 9 of 9