Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Ihor D.,
Petitioner,
v.
Kristi Noem, Secretary, U.S. Department of
Homeland Security; Department of
Homeland Security; Todd M. Lyons, Acting
Director of Immigration and Customs
Enforcement; Immigration and Customs
Enforcement; David Easterwood, Acting
Director, St. Paul Field Office Immigration
and Customs Enforcement;
Respondents.
File No. 26-CV-351 (JMB/DTS)
AMENDED1 ORDER
Cameron Lane Youngs Giebink, Wilson Law Group, Minneapolis, MN, for Ihor D.
Ana H. Voss, United States Attorney’s Office, Minneapolis, MN, for Respondents Kristi
Noem, Department of Homeland Security, Todd M. Lyons, Immigration and Customs
Enforcement, and David Easterwood.
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Ihor D.’s2 Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus (Petition) under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. No. 1 [hereinafter, “Pet.”].) Respondents
Kristi Noem, Department of Homeland Security, Todd M. Lyons, Immigration and
Customs Enforcement, and David Easterwood (together, Respondents) are named in the
1 Revisions to the original order are made in bolded and underlined font.
2 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-00351-JMB-DTS Doc. 8 Filed 01/20/26 Page 1 of 5

2
Petition. For the reasons explained below, the Court grants the Petition in part.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. 	Ihor D. is a citizen of Ukraine who entered the United States and was paroled
pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5)(A) starting on May 30, 2024, and valid through May 29,
2026. (Pet. ¶¶ 3, 30–32.) At the time he was paroled into the United States, Respondents
released him from custody. (Id.)
2. 	He has been living in the United States freely since he was paroled, has been
employed pursuant to a lawful employment authorization, and has no criminal history. (Id.
¶¶ 34, 38.)
3. 	On January 15, 2026, Respondents detained Ihor D. on his way to work. (Id.
¶ 34.) 	He is currently detained in Minnesota. 	(Id. ¶ 39.) 	Respondents offered no
explanation for this arrest and provided Ihor D with no paperwork concerning removal or
revocation of his parole. (Id. ¶ 36–37.)
4. 	He has complied with all the terms of his parole and knows of no reason why
he was taken into custody. (Id. ¶ 38.)
5. 	Ihor D. filed his Petition on January 15, 2026. 	(Pet.) He asks the Court to
immediately release him from custody. (Id. at 28–39.)
6. 	On January 16, 2026, the Court ordered Respondents to respond to the
Petition by January 20, 2026, at 11:00 a.m. CT “certifying the true cause and proper
duration of Petitioner's confinement and showing cause as to why the writ should not be
granted in this case.” (Doc. No. 3.)
7. 	The deadline has passed, and Respondents did not respond to the Petition.
CASE 0:26-cv-00351-JMB-DTS Doc. 8 Filed 01/20/26 Page 2 of 5

3
DISCUSSION
Respondents do not oppose the Petition, and on that basis alone, and considering the
factual showings made by Petitioner as recounted above, the Court grants the Petition.3
See Rodriguez-Quiroz v. Lynch, 835 F.3d 809, 822 n.6 (8th Cir. 2016) (noting that the
government waived an argument by failing to raise it in an immigration appeal); see also
Estephanny P. v. Bondi, No. 26-CV-198 (ECT/JFD), Doc. No. 10, at *3 (D. Minn. Jan. 15,
2026) (citing Doe v. Mayorkas, No. 22-cv-752 (ECT/DTS), 2022 WL 4450272, at *2 (D.
Minn. Sep. 23, 2022) (concluding that failure to respond is an express waiver of those
3 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).
The Constitution also guarantees every person in the United States due process of
law, including persons who are not United States citizens. E.g., Lopez v. Heinauer, 332
F.3d 507, 512 (8th Cir. 2003) (“The Supreme Court has long recognized that deportable
aliens are entitled to constitutional protections of due process.” (citing Yamataya v. Fisher,
189 U.S. 86, 100–01 (1903))); see also, e.g., Trump v. J.G.G., 604 U. S. 670, 673 (2025)
(per curiam) (“‘It is well established that the Fifth Amendment entitles aliens to due process
of law’ in the context of removal proceedings.” (quoting Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292, 306
(1993))); Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 695 (2001) (“[T]he Due Process Clause applies
to all persons within the United States, including aliens, whether their presence here is
lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent.”).
CASE 0:26-cv-00351-JMB-DTS Doc. 8 Filed 01/20/26 Page 3 of 5

4
arguments or claims)); Bland v. California Dep’t of Corr., 20 F.3d 1469, 1474 (9th Cir.
1994) (“When the State’s return fails to dispute the factual allegations contained in the
petition and traverse, it essentially admits those allegations.”), overruled on other grounds
by Schell v. Witek, 218 F.3d 1017 (9th Cir. 2000).
Separately and independently, the Court also grants the request for immediate
release because it is persuaded by the analysis of the court in Rodriguez-Acurio v.
Almodovar, No. 2:25-CV-6065 (NJC), 2025 WL 3314420 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 28, 2025). Like
the petitioner in Rodriguez-Acurio, Ihor D. was previously released on temporary parole,
did not violate any terms of the release, and has not been provided with sufficient due
process of law. 	See id. at *9–24, 30–31. 	Accordingly, the Court orders that Ihor D. be
released in Minnesota.4
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 in part and
DENIED in part, follows:
1. 	Respondents are ORDERED to release Petitioner Ihor D. from custody in
Minnesota immediately, and in any event on or before 5:00 p.m. CT on
January 20, 2026.
2. 	On or before 11:00 a.m. CT on January 21, 2026, Respondents shall provide
the Court with a status update affirming that Petitioner was released from
custody in accordance with this Order.
4 In light of this decision, the Court declines to address the remaining allegations and claims
in the Petition.
CASE 0:26-cv-00351-JMB-DTS Doc. 8 Filed 01/20/26 Page 4 of 5

5
3. 	Ihor D. may move separately within 30 days of final judgment in this action
to recover attorney’s fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act,
28 U.S.C. § 2412(d).
4. 	As to other forms of relief requested, the Petition is DENIED.
5. 	Petitioner’s Motion to Amend (Doc. No. 5) is GRANTED.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: January 20, 2026 	/s/ Jeffrey M. Bryan
Judge Jeffrey M. Bryan
United States District Court
CASE 0:26-cv-00351-JMB-DTS Doc. 8 Filed 01/20/26 Page 5 of 5