Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Jafet L.C.,
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. 26-903 (DWF/EMB)
MEMORANDUM
OPINION AND ORDER
INTRODUCTION
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Jafet L.C.’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. § 1226(a). (Doc. No. 5.) For the
reasons set forth below, the Court grants the Petition and orders Respondents to release
Petitioner immediately.
BACKGROUND
Petitioner is a citizen of Mexico and a resident of Brooklyn Park, Minnesota.
(Doc. No. 1 ¶¶ 11, 18.) Petitioner is 35 years old and has lived in the United States since
he was ten years old—for nearly 25 years. (Id. ¶¶ 2, 18.) Petitioner has three children
who are U.S. citizens and is the primary wage earner for his immediate family. (Id. ¶¶ 2,
CASE 0:26-cv-00903-DWF-EMB Doc. 8 Filed 02/03/26 Page 1 of 5

2
18.) Petitioner received a U-Visa in September 2014 as the victim of a qualifying crime
who cooperated with the investigation of the crime. (Id. ¶¶ 2, 19.) Petitioner applied to
adjust his status to permanent resident when he was eligible in 2020, but that application
was denied in October 2023. (Id. ¶ 19.)
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) agents stopped Petitioner
while driving and arrested him without a warrant on January 30, 2026. (Id. ¶¶ 3, 21.)
ICE agents claimed that they were looking for someone with a car that matched his car’s
description, and although Petitioner was not the person ICE claims it was looking for, the
agents arrested Petitioner. (Id. ¶ 21.) Upon belief, Petitioner is being held at Fort
Snelling in Minnesota. (Id. ¶¶ 9, 11.)
Petitioner filed the Petition on January 30, 2026. (Id. at 21.) Petitioner asserts that
his detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) is unlawful because it violates the Due Process
Clause of the Fifth Amendment and the Immigration and Nationality Act. (Id. ¶¶ 56-69.)
Petitioner requests, among other things, immediate release from detention and that his
personal property and possessions be returned to him. (Id. at 20-21.) Also on
January 30, 2026, the Court ordered Respondents to answer the Petition by February 2,
2026, at 12:00 p.m. CT, and enjoined Respondents from moving Petitioner from this
District pending further order. (Doc. No. 3.) Respondents filed a response. (Doc.
No. 5.)
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
CASE 0:26-cv-00903-DWF-EMB Doc. 8 Filed 02/03/26 Page 2 of 5

3
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 response, asserting authority to detain Petitioner under
8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). Petitioner responds that detention under § 1226(a) is unlawful
because his arrest was made without a warrant and because Respondents failed to
produce any evidence to support the lawfulness of Petitioner’s detention. (Doc. No. 6
at 2-5.)
The Court agrees with Petitioner. Here, Respondents argue that Petitioner was
lawfully detained under § 1226(a). That statute provides that “[o]n a warrant issued by
the Attorney General, [a noncitizen] may be arrested and detained pending a decision on
whether the [noncitizen] is to be removed from the United States.” 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a)
(emphasis added). There is no evidence that Respondents had a warrant. In fact,
Respondents do not even attempt to argue that they had a warrant. (Doc. No. 5.) Instead,
Respondents gloss over the warrant requirement by citing to § 1226 and omitting the
language specifically requiring a warrant. (See Doc. No. 5 at 2 (citing to § 1226 but
omitting the first clause of the sentence reading “[o]n a warrant issued by the Attorney
General”).) In addition, any factual assertion that Respondents were executing a warrant
when detaining Petitioner is belied by the fact that the ICE agents who detained Petitioner
were allegedly looking for someone else, not Petitioner. (Doc. No. 1 ¶ 21.)
CASE 0:26-cv-00903-DWF-EMB Doc. 8 Filed 02/03/26 Page 3 of 5

4
Contrary to Respondents’ misleading recitation of § 1226(a), there is no dispute
that “issuance of a warrant is a necessary condition to justify discretionary detention
under section 1226(a).” Cristian Z. v. Bondi, No. 26-cv-157, 2026 WL 123116, at *2
(D. Minn. Jan. 16, 2026) (citation modified); see 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a).1 Without a warrant,
ICE does not have authority to detain a noncitizen under § 1226(a). See Cristian Z., 2026
WL 123116, at *2 (collecting cases). Because ICE did not have a warrant to detain
Petitioner, Petitioner’s detention is unlawful. 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.
1 	The Court would like to believe that Respondents’ omission of the statutory
language requiring a warrant was an oversight. Any omission of material statutory
language is misleading and could be considered misrepresentation by omission. Going
forward, the Court expects Respondents to accurately, and completely, describe the legal
requirements of detention under § 1226(a), including, of course, the warrant requirement.
CASE 0:26-cv-00903-DWF-EMB Doc. 8 Filed 02/03/26 Page 4 of 5

5
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, work permit,
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.
6. 	Respondents are ENJOINED from re-detaining Petitioner under this same
statutory theory, absent materially changed circumstances.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: February 3, 2026 	s/Donovan W. Frank
DONOVAN W. FRANK
United States District Judge
CASE 0:26-cv-00903-DWF-EMB Doc. 8 Filed 02/03/26 Page 5 of 5