Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Frances 	Ivy 	Mahoney-Mosedale, 	Lydia 	Lockwood, 	Mary 	M. 	Nikolai,
GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC, 120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600, Minneapolis,
MN 55402, for Petitioner.
Ana H. Voss, Julie T. Le, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, 300 South
Fourth Street, Suite 600, Minneapolis, MN 55415 for Respondents.
Petitioner Norma V.A. was arrested and detained by United States Immigration
and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) on January 7, 2026. Norma V.A. petitions for a writ of
habeas corpus, arguing that she is being detained unlawfully. 	Because the Court
NORMA V.A.,
Petitioner,
v.
PAMELA BONDI, United States Attorney
General;
KRISTI NOEM, Secretary, U.S. Department
of Homeland Security;
DAVID EASTERWOOD, Acting Director, St.
Paul Field Office, U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement; and
TODD 	M. 	LYONS, 	Acting 	Director 	of
Immigration and Customs Enforcement,
Respondents.
Civil No. 26-618 (JRT/DJF)
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
GRANTING PETITION FOR WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS
CASE 0:26-cv-00618-JRT-DJF Doc. 7 Filed 01/30/26 Page 1 of 6

-2-
concludes that Norma V.A.’s detention is unlawful, the Court will grant her petition for
writ of habeas corpus and order that she be released from custody.
BACKGROUND
Norma V.A. is a citizen of Mexico and a resident of Minneapolis, Minnesota.
(Verified Pet. Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Pet.”) ¶ 31, Jan. 24, 2026, Docket No. 1.) 	She
entered the United States on May 7, 2019 without inspection. (Id. ¶ 2.) Two days later,
DHS issued Norma V.A. a Notice to Appear (Form I-862) charging her as removable under
Section 212 (a)(6)(A)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act because she was “an alien
present in the United States without being admitted or paroled, or who arrived in the
United States at any time or place other than designated by the Attorney General.” (Id.,
Ex. 1.) On June 7, 2021, Norma V.A. filed an asylum application. (Id. ¶ 32.) DHS has issued
her a work permit, which is valid through January 14, 2030. (Id. ¶ 33.)
Norma V.A. is employed as a cook at a Spanish-immersion childcare center. (Id.
¶ 33.) On Wednesday, January 7, 2026, Petitioner arrived to work at approximately 8:00
a.m. (Id. ¶ 39.) Petitioner was helping her niece—also an employee at the daycare—park
her car, when “several unmarked SUVs with flashing lights suddenly approached,” boxed
in the vehicle, and demanded that Petitioner get out of the car. 	(Id. ¶¶ 39–40.) 	This
occurred “during morning drop-off,” and many bystanders, including colleagues, parents,
and students, witnessed the encounter. (Id. ¶ 39, 41.)
Petitioner was taken into custody and detained at Fort Snelling. (Id. ¶ 42.) On or
around January 9, she was transferred to a detention facility in El Paso, Texas. (Id. ¶ 44.)
CASE 0:26-cv-00618-JRT-DJF Doc. 7 Filed 01/30/26 Page 2 of 6

-3-
Petitioner has allegedly been transferred back to Minnesota. (Reply at 2, Jan. 27, 2026,
Docket No. 6.)
On January 24, 2026, Norma V.A. filed a Verified Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
(Docket No. 1). She alleges that her continued detention is unlawful and requests that
the Court order her immediate release, or alternatively, a bond hearing. (Id. at 24.) That
same day, the Court issued an order directing Respondents to immediately return
Petitioner to Minnesota (Docket No. 3). 	Respondents seek dismissal or transfer of the
petition, arguing that this District is not the proper venue (Docket No. 5).
DISCUSSION
Aside from disputing venue, 1 Respondents offer no basis to support the detention
of Petitioner. 	To the extent Respondents rely on 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) to justify
1 In a typical case involving a habeas petition brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a), a
petitioner who “seeks to challenge his present physical custody within the United States
. . . should name his warden as respondent and file the petition in the district of confinement.”
Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 428 (2004). 	Because Petitioner is now being detained in
Minnesota, the Court will reject Respondents’ request for dismissal or transfer. Even if Petitioner
was being detained in Texas, the Court would reject Respondents’ request because exceptions
exist to the default, district-of-confinement rule. See Padilla, 542 U.S. at 435; see also Xia v. King,
No. 24-2000, 2025 WL 240792, at *2 (D. Minn. Jan. 17, 2025) (recognizing the existence of certain
exceptions). For example, the Supreme Court has recognized that when “a prisoner is held in an
undisclosed location by an unknown custodian, it is impossible to apply” the typical rules for
determining the proper forum for a habeas petition. 	Padilla, 542 U.S. at 450 n.18. 	Had
Petitioner’s transfer back to Minnesota not mooted the venue issue, this exception likely would
have applied here because, as other courts in this District have acknowledged, when
“Government-controlled transfers,” like the one in this case are “executed within hours of
detention and before communication with counsel is possible” such conduct “risk[s] defeating
timely judicial review.” E.E. v. Bondi, No. 26-314, Docket No. 7 at 5 (D. Minn. Jan. 17, 2026). For
these reasons, the Court finds that it has jurisdiction.
CASE 0:26-cv-00618-JRT-DJF Doc. 7 Filed 01/30/26 Page 3 of 6

-4-
Petitioner’s detention, the Court rejects that justification. After thorough review of the
parties’ filings, the Court concludes that the legal issues presented by Norma V.A.’s
habeas petition are subject to the same analysis the Court recently employed in Herrera
Avila v. Bondi, No. 25-3741, 2025 WL 2976539 (D. Minn. Oct. 21, 2025) and Romero
Santuario v. Bondi, No. 25-4296, 2025 WL 3469577 (D. Minn, Dec. 2, 2025). 	Section
1225(b)(2) does not authorize the warrantless, notice-less arrest of an individual already
present in the United States. 	For the same reasons articulated in Herrera Avila and
Romero Santuario, the Court concludes that it possesses jurisdiction over this petition,
and that Norma V.A.’s detention is not authorized by § 1225(b)(2).
The Court therefore turns to the proper remedy. In previous cases involving this
issue, the Court has concluded that a bond hearing pursuant to § 1226(a) is the
appropriate remedy. 	However, the Court is now persuaded that where, as here,
(1) Respondents erroneously assert that a detainee is being held pursuant to § 1225(b)(2);
and (2) Respondents have not produced a warrant, as is required to effectuate an arrest
pursuant to § 1226(a), the appropriate remedy is release from custody. See, e.g., Ahmed
M. v. Bondi, No. 25-4711, 2026 WL 25627, at *3 (D. Minn. Jan. 5, 2026); Lauro M. v. Bondi,
No. 26-134, 2026 WL 115022, at *3 (D. Minn. Jan. 15, 2026); cf. 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.”).
CASE 0:26-cv-00618-JRT-DJF Doc. 7 Filed 01/30/26 Page 4 of 6

-5-
The Court is disturbed by the facts of this case. 	Respondents’ arrest of
Petitioner—as children, and their parents dropping them off at daycare, looked on—was
unlawful. Accordingly, the Court will grant Norma V.A.’s petition for writ of habeas corpus
and will order that she be released from custody.
ORDER
Based on the foregoing, and all the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. 	Petitioner Norma V.A.’s Verified Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Docket No.
[1]) is GRANTED, as follows:
a. 	Petitioner 	is 	not 	subject 	to 	mandatory 	detention 	under 	8 	U.S.C.
§ 1225(b)(2).
b. 	If Petitioner is presently detained outside of the District of Minnesota,
Respondents shall TRANSPORT Petitioner to Minnesota and RELEASE
Petitioner from custody immediately. 	Petitioner’s release in Minnesota
must occur no later than 48 hours after the filing of this Order.
c. 	If Petitioner remains in detention in Minnesota, Respondents shall release
Petitioner from custody as soon as practicable, and no later than 48 hours
from the filing of this Order.
d. 	Given the severe weather conditions in Minnesota, Respondents are
ORDERED to coordinate with Petitioner’s counsel to ensure that upon
CASE 0:26-cv-00618-JRT-DJF Doc. 7 Filed 01/30/26 Page 5 of 6

-6-
Petitioner’s release, they are not left outside in dangerous cold. 	It is
preferable to release Petitioner to counsel to ensure humane treatment.
e. 	Respondents must release Petitioner with all personal documents, such as
driver’s 	licenses, 	passports, 	or 	immigration 	documents, 	and 	without
conditions such as location tracking devices.
f. 	The parties shall provide the Court with a status update concerning the
status of Petitioner’s release by no later than 5:00 p.m. on February 2,
2026. 	Further, the parties shall advise the Court whether any additional
proceedings in this matter are required and submit any proposals for the
scope of further litigation.
DATED: January 30, 2025
at Minneapolis, Minnesota. 	JOHN R. TUNHEIM
Time: 1:58 p.m. 	United States District Judge
CASE 0:26-cv-00618-JRT-DJF Doc. 7 Filed 01/30/26 Page 6 of 6