Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Miguel A.F.,
Petitioner,
v.
Kristi Noem, Secretary, U.S. Department
of Homeland Security, in their official
capacities; U.S. Department of Homeland
Security; Pamela Bondi, U.S. Attorney
General, in their official capacities;
Todd M. Lyons, in their official
capacities; and U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement,
Respondents.
Civil No. 26-686 (DWF/DJF)
MEMORANDUM
OPINION AND ORDER
INTRODUCTION
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Miguel A.F.’s petition for a writ of
habeas corpus alleging that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution and laws of
the United States (the “Petition”). (Doc. No. 1.) Respondents filed a form response
asserting authority to detain Petitioner under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A). (See Doc. No. 4.)
For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants the Petition and orders Respondents to
immediately release Petitioner.
BACKGROUND
Petitioner is a citizen of Mexico and a resident of Crystal, Minnesota in Hennepin
County. (Doc. No. 1 ¶ 27.) Petitioner entered the United States in 2007 without
inspection. (Id. ¶ 1.) For close to twenty years, Petitioner has been living in Minnesota
CASE 0:26-cv-00686-DWF-DJF Doc. 6 Filed 01/30/26 Page 1 of 6

2
with his family. (Id. ¶¶ 2, 29-30.) Petitioner works at Wendy’s and lives with his wife,
son, daughter-in-law, and three grandchildren. (Id. ¶ 29.) He regularly attends church
with his wife, enjoys spending time with his family, and attends his grandchildren’s
dance and sporting events. (Id. ¶ 30.) Petitioner has no criminal record. (Id. ¶ 31.)
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) agents arrested Petitioner on
January 25, 2026, in Hennepin County. (Id. ¶¶ 3, 33.) At the time of his arrest, Petitioner
was riding in a car with his wife and son on their way to church. (Id. ¶ 3.) ICE agents
did not cite a statutory basis for Petitioner’s detention. (Id.) Upon information and
belief, Petitioner is currently detained in Minnesota. 	(Id. ¶¶ 4, 33, 35.)
Petitioner filed the Petition on January 26, 2026. (Id. at 17.) Petitioner asserts that
his detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) is unlawful because it violates the Fourth and
Fifth Amendment and the Immigration and Nationality Act, and because he is a member
of the Bond Eligible Class certified in Maldonado Bautista v. Santacruz, No. 25-cv-1873,
2025 WL 3713987 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2025). (Id. ¶¶ 7, 37-62.) 1 Petitioner requests,
among other things, release from detention or an order requiring Respondents to provide
him with a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226 within three days. (Id. at 15-16.) On
January 27, 2026, the Court ordered Respondents to answer the Petition on or before
January 30, 2026, at 12:00 p.m. CT, and enjoined Respondents from moving Petitioner
1 	Because the Court concludes that § 1225(b) does not apply to Petitioner, and
therefore Petitioner is entitled to relief regardless of whether he is a member of the class,
the Court need not address the effect of Maldonado Baustista.
CASE 0:26-cv-00686-DWF-DJF Doc. 6 Filed 01/30/26 Page 2 of 6

3
from this District pending further order. (Doc. No. 3.) Respondents timely filed a form
response. (Doc. No. 4.)
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. (See Doc.
No. 4.) 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
CASE 0:26-cv-00686-DWF-DJF Doc. 6 Filed 01/30/26 Page 3 of 6

4
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 nearly twenty years. 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. 3), Respondents did not do so,
(see Doc. No. 4). The Court therefore concludes that Petitioner was arrested without a
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:
CASE 0:26-cv-00686-DWF-DJF Doc. 6 Filed 01/30/26 Page 4 of 6

5
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: (1) in Minnesota; (2) with
all personal documents and belongings, such as his driver’s license, passport, other
immigration documents, and cell phone; (3) without conditions such as ankle monitors or
tracking devices; and (4) with all clothing and outerwear he was wearing at the time of
detention, or other proper winter attire. In addition, Respondents shall provide
reasonable advance notice to counsel to arrange for a safe release of Petitioner or
otherwise provide notice immediately after release.
6. 	Respondents are ENJOINED from re-detaining Petitioner under this same
statutory theory, absent materially changed circumstances.
CASE 0:26-cv-00686-DWF-DJF Doc. 6 Filed 01/30/26 Page 5 of 6

6
7. 	Within thirty (30) days of final judgment in this action, Petitioner may
move to recover attorneys’ fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act,
28 U.S.C. § 2412(d).
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: January 30, 2026 	s/Donovan W. Frank
DONOVAN W. FRANK
United States District Judge
CASE 0:26-cv-00686-DWF-DJF Doc. 6 Filed 01/30/26 Page 6 of 6