Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Jonnathan X.D.B.,
Petitioner,
v.
Kristi Noem, Secretary, U.S. Department
of Homeland Security; Todd M. Lyons,
Acting Director of Immigration and
Customs Enforcement; David Easterwood,
Acting Director of Enforcement and
Removal Operations, St. Paul Field
Office, Immigration and Customs
Enforcement; Pamela Bondi, U.S.
Attorney General; Warden, ERO Torrence
County Detention Center, Estancia, New
Mexico; Executive Office for Immigration
Review; and Immigration and Customs
Enforcement,
Respondents.
Civil No. 26-588 (DWF/DJF)
MEMORANDUM
OPINION AND ORDER
INTRODUCTION
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Jonnathan X.D.B.’s petition for a writ
of habeas corpus (the “Petition”). (Doc. No. 1.) Respondents filed a response seeking
dismissal or transfer to the District of New Mexico. (Doc. No. 6.) For the reasons set
forth below, the Court grants Respondents’ request and transfers this case to the District
of New Mexico.
CASE 0:26-cv-00588-DWF-DJF Doc. 8 Filed 01/28/26 Page 1 of 5

2
BACKGROUND
Petitioner is a citizen of Ecuador and has been present in the United States since
August 2024. (Doc. No. 1 ¶¶ 3, 24.) He was previously held by immigration authorities,
then issued a Notice to Appear and released, and subsequently granted interim parole.
(Id. ¶¶ 1, 3.) He currently has a pending asylum application. (Id. ¶¶ 1, 5.) Petitioner has
fully complied with all immigration requirements since his release. (Id. ¶ 4.)
Petitioner was arrested on January 10, 2026, at a regular check-in with U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”). (Id. ¶ 6.) Petitioner was initially
detained in Minnesota, but later transferred to El Paso, Texas, and then to Estancia, New
Mexico. (Id. ¶¶ 1, 8.) He was detained in New Mexico at the time the Petition was filed
and appears to still be detained in New Mexico today. (See id. ¶ 8; Doc. No. 7 at 3.)
Petitioner currently has a master hearing set for February 3, 2026, before an immigration
judge in New Mexico. (Doc. No. 1 ¶ 9.)
Petitioner filed the Petition on January 23, 2026. (Id. at 12.) He asserts that his
detention is unlawful under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and the
Administrative Procedure Act. (Id. ¶¶ 31-41.) He requests that the Court order his return
to Minnesota and subsequent release and award attorneys’ fees and costs under the Equal
Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412. (Id. at 11-12.) Respondents filed a response
seeking dismissal or transfer of the Petition to the District of New Mexico. (Doc. No. 6.)
DISCUSSION
Generally, jurisdiction over a habeas petition lies only in the district of
confinement. Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 443 (2004). There are a couple of
CASE 0:26-cv-00588-DWF-DJF Doc. 8 Filed 01/28/26 Page 2 of 5

3
exceptions to this general rule. First, a district court is not stripped of jurisdiction if the
Government moves the petitioner after they properly filed their petition in that district.
Id. at 441. Second, the general rule is inapplicable when “there is an indication that the
Government’s purpose in removing a prisoner [was] to make it difficult for his lawyer to
know where the habeas petition should be filed, or where the Government was not
forthcoming with respect to the identity of the custodian and the place of detention.” Id.
at 454 (Kennedy, J., concurring); see also id. at 450 n.18 (majority opinion) (“When . . . a
prisoner is held in an undisclosed location by an unknown custodian, it is impossible to
apply the immediate custodian and district of confinement rules.”); Aleksander B. v.
Trump, No. 26-cv-170, 2026 WL 172435, at *2 (D. Minn. Jan. 22, 2026) (collecting
cases that recognized this exception).
Here, Petitioner acknowledges that he was detained in the District of New Mexico
at the time the Petition was filed. Therefore, the first exception is inapplicable. It
appears that the second exception is also inapplicable because Petitioner’s argument
primarily focuses on his ties to the Minnesota community and his arrest in Minnesota
rather than the Government’s actions since the arrest. Although Petitioner has been
moved twice, there is no evidence in the record that the Government did so to make it
difficult for counsel to locate him or file a habeas petition. Furthermore, Petitioner’s
current location is known and does not appear likely to change given that he has a master
hearing set for next week. Without more, the Court cannot establish jurisdiction to hear
CASE 0:26-cv-00588-DWF-DJF Doc. 8 Filed 01/28/26 Page 3 of 5

4
this case. 1 However, given the Court’s concerns about Respondents’ authority for
Petitioner’s continued detention, the Court transfers this case to the District of New
Mexico for further proceedings.
ORDER
Based on the foregoing and the record in this case, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED
that:
1. 	Respondents’ motion to transfer venue (Doc. No. [6]) is GRANTED.
1 	Petitioner includes a brief argument about forum shopping by Respondents. This
Court has previously addressed concerns about forum shopping by ICE. See de Jesus
Paiva v. Aljets, No. 03-cv-6075, 2003 WL 22888865, at *4 (D. Minn. Dec. 1, 2003).
That case came before Padilla, however, much of the Court’s reasoning is particularly
relevant to ICE’s recent activity in Minnesota. In many cases, ICE is working to quickly
transport detainees out of Minnesota, creating significant hardship on their families and
counsel. See, e.g., Tah L. v. Trump, No. 26-cv-171, 2026 WL 184524, at *3 (D. Minn.
Jan. 19, 2026) (recommending denial of motion to transfer where the petition was filed in
the District of Minnesota one day after the petitioner was detained in Minnesota, but the
petitioner had been allegedly transferred to Texas before filing, without the knowledge of
counsel), adopted as modified, Lah v. Bondi, 2026 WL 184529 (D. Minn. Jan. 23, 2026).
In many cases, the ICE detainee locator system contains only “Call ICE For Details,” not
a specific location. E.g., Miguel T.G. v. Bondi, No. 26-cv-243, 2026 WL 172722, at *1-2
(D. Minn. Jan. 22, 2026); see also Adriana M.Y.M. v. Easterwood; No. 26-cv-213, 2026
WL 184721, at *1-3 (D. Minn. Jan. 24, 2026) (denying a motion to transfer when the
petitioner did not appear in ICE’s detainee locator system, and her last known location
was in Minnesota).
These practices are deeply concerning and generally suggest that ICE is
attempting to hide the location of detainees, and thus, make habeas proceedings more
difficult for a petitioner and their counsel. Although Petitioner was transferred in this
case, the record shows that counsel knew Petitioner was in New Mexico at the time of
filing and suggests that Petitioner was detained in New Mexico for multiple days prior to
the filing of the Petition. (See Doc. No. 6 at 1.) The record also suggests that Petitioner’s
location has been known to counsel at all times. Petitioner’s case does not fit the pattern
of obfuscation the Court is seeing in other cases. For that reason, the Court grants the
transfer request.
CASE 0:26-cv-00588-DWF-DJF Doc. 8 Filed 01/28/26 Page 4 of 5

5
2. 	This case shall be transferred to the District of New Mexico. The Clerk of
Court is directed to effectuate the transfer.
Dated: January 28, 2026 	s/Donovan W. Frank
DONOVAN W. FRANK
United States District Judge
CASE 0:26-cv-00588-DWF-DJF Doc. 8 Filed 01/28/26 Page 5 of 5