Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Franklin I.G.R.,
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. 26-567 (DWF/DTS)
MEMORANDUM
OPINION AND ORDER
INTRODUCTION
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Franklin I.G.R.’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)(A). (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 has lived in Minneapolis, Minnesota, since
November 2022. (Doc. No. 1 ¶¶ 7, 12.) Petitioner has never been given an order for
removal and has a pending asylum application. (Id. ¶ 13.) Petitioner was arrested by
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) agents on January 22, 2026. (Id.
CASE 0:26-cv-00567-DWF-DTS Doc. 8 Filed 01/27/26 Page 1 of 5

2
¶ 16.) It appears that ICE arrested Petitioner without a warrant. (See id. ¶¶ 16, 50.)
Petitioner’s current location is unknown. (Id. ¶ 17.) Counsel for Petitioner has attempted
to locate him but has been unsuccessful. (See id.)
Petitioner filed the Petition on January 22, 2026. (Id. at 15.) Petitioner asserts that
his detention violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, the Immigration
and Nationality Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act. (Id. ¶¶ 28-44.) He asks the
Court to order his release, or alternatively, order the immigration court to hold a bond
hearing. (Id. at 14-15.) On January 23, 2026, the Court ordered Respondents to answer
the Petition by January 26, 2026, at 12:00 p.m. CT, and enjoined Respondents from
moving Petitioner from this District pending further order. (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 form response, arguing that Petitioner is subject to
mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A), and pointing the Court to their
arguments in a pending Eighth Circuit case: Avila v. Bondi, No. 25-3248. (Doc. No. 6.)
CASE 0:26-cv-00567-DWF-DTS Doc. 8 Filed 01/27/26 Page 2 of 5

3
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
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 three years and has a pending asylum application. 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 detainment. 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
detainment 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
CASE 0:26-cv-00567-DWF-DTS Doc. 8 Filed 01/27/26 Page 3 of 5

4
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)).
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, the Government shall
provide the Court with a status update confirming Petitioner’s release.
5. 	Respondents are directed to release Petitioner with all personal documents
and belongings, such as his driver’s license, passport, other immigration documents, and
cell phone, and without conditions such as ankle monitors or tracking devices.
CASE 0:26-cv-00567-DWF-DTS Doc. 8 Filed 01/27/26 Page 4 of 5

5
6. 	Respondents are ENJOINED from re-detaining Petitioner under this same
statutory theory, absent materially changed circumstances.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: January 27, 2026 	s/Donovan W. Frank
DONOVAN W. FRANK
United States District Judge
CASE 0:26-cv-00567-DWF-DTS Doc. 8 Filed 01/27/26 Page 5 of 5