Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Jorge H. M. O.,
Petitioner,
v. 	ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION
Civil File No. 26-00609 (MJD/DLM)
Pamela Bondi, et al.,
Defendants.
Taylor Jon Volkman, Taylor Volkman, Esq., Counsel for Petitioner.
David W. Fuller, Assistant United States Attorney, Counsel for Respondents.
The above-entitled matter comes before the Court upon the Report and
Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Douglas L. Micko filed
January 28, 2026. [Doc. 8.] Petitioner has filed objections to the Report and
Recommendation. Pursuant to statute, the Court has conducted a de novo
review upon the record. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); D. Minn. LR 72.2(b). Based upon
that review, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate
Judge Micko with modification.
CASE 0:26-cv-00609-MJD-DLM Doc. 11 Filed 02/06/26 Page 1 of 5

2
I. 	Petitioner’s Objections
Petitioner agrees with the recommended holding of the R&R, but argues
that immediate release rather than a bond hearing is the proper remedy. He first
notes that despite the Court’s January 24 order to immediately return him to
Minnesota, he is still in detention in Texas, although Respondents have moved
him from El Paso to Pearsall, Texas. (Doc. 9 at 1-2.) Petitioner asks that the
Court order Respondents to show cause for their continued violation of the
Court’s order.
Second, Petitioner argues that in a situation like his, where “Respondents
have not identified a valid statutory basis for detention in the first place, the
remedy is not to supply one through further proceedings. Simply put, for
detention that lacks a lawful predicate, such as Petitioner’s detention in the
present case, release is an available and appropriate remedy.” (Id. at 2 (quoting
Gonzalo R.I. v. Bondi, No. 26-CV-248 (MJD/LIB), 2026 WL 191034, at *5 (D. Minn.
Jan. 22, 2026), R&R adopted, 2026 WL 198793 (D. Minn. Jan. 25, 2026)).)
Petitioner also notes that “[i]ssuance of a warrant is a necessary condition to
justify discretionary detention under section 1226(a). It follows that absent a
warrant a noncitizen may not be arrested and detained under section 1226(a).”
(Id. (quoting Ahmed M. v. Bondi, No. 25-CV-4711 (ECT/SGE), 2026 WL 25627, at
CASE 0:26-cv-00609-MJD-DLM Doc. 11 Filed 02/06/26 Page 2 of 5

3
*3 (D. Minn. Jan. 5, 2026)).) Therefore, Petitioner states that most of the judges in
this District have found that when the government produces no lawful basis for
detention and no evidence of a warrant, release is the appropriate remedy. (Id.
at 2-3 (gathering cases).)
Petitioner, a resident of Eagan, Minnesota and citizen of Columbia, with
both pending asylum and U-visa applications, has lived in the United States
since 2022. He was arrested on January 15, 2026 when ICE agents broke down
the door of his home and arrested him, his wife, and another family member.
(Doc. 1 at 4.) The petition states that no warrant was presented and upon
information and belief, ICE did not have a warrant. (Id.) Respondents do not
challenge this version of the facts even though the Court directed Respondents to
address whether the absence of a warrant preceding Petitioner’s arrest
necessitated Petitioner’s immediate release. (Doc. 3 ¶ 2(d); Doc. 5.)
The Court agrees with Petitioner that release is the appropriate remedy
here because Petitioner’s detention lacked a lawful predicate. See Gonzalo R.I.,
2026 WL 191034, at *5. The R&R will be modified accordingly.
II. 	Order
Based upon the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED that the Court ADOPTS with modification the Report and
CASE 0:26-cv-00609-MJD-DLM Doc. 11 Filed 02/06/26 Page 3 of 5

4
Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Douglas L. Micko filed
January 28, 2026. [Doc. 8.]
1. 	Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus [Doc. 1] is GRANTED;
2. 	Respondents are ordered to immediately release Petitioner Jorge H. M. O.
from custody into Minnesota with the following specific relief to ensure a
safe trip home:
a. 	At least 4 hours advance notice to Petitioner’s counsel of the time
and location of release;
b. Petitioner must be released with all of the personal effects he had
when he was arrested, such as:
i. 	his passport,
ii. 	driver’s license,
iii. 	keys, and
iv. 	cell phone;
c. 	Petitioner cannot be subject to any conditions of release; and
3. 	Within 48 hours of the date of this Order, Respondents are ordered to file a
notice confirming such release; or
CASE 0:26-cv-00609-MJD-DLM Doc. 11 Filed 02/06/26 Page 4 of 5

5
4. 	If Respondents are unable to confirm Petitioner’s release and safe return to
Minnesota, Respondents are ordered to instead provide a statement to the
Court to show cause why Respondents continue to violate the Court’s
orders to return Petitioner to Minnesota.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: 	February 6, 2026 	s/Michael J. Davis
Michael J. Davis
United States District Court
CASE 0:26-cv-00609-MJD-DLM Doc. 11 Filed 02/06/26 Page 5 of 5