Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
JOFFRE A.J.L.,
Petitioner,
v.
PAMELA BONDI, United States Attorney
General;
KRISTI NOEM, Secretary, U.S. Department
of Homeland Security;
TODD M. LYONS, Acting Director, St. Paul
Field Office, Immigration and Customs
Enforcement;
DAVID EASTERWOOD, Acting Director, St.
Paul Field Office, U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement;
WARDEN, El Paso Camp East ICE
Detention Facility, El Paso, Texas; and
Respondents.
Civil No. 26-962 (JRT/SGE)
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
GRANTING PETITION FOR WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS
Samuel Verner, ZIMMER LAW GROUP, 155 Wabasha Street South, Suite
155, Saint Paul, MN 55107, for Petitioner.
David R. Hackworthy, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, 300 South
Fourth Street, Suite 600, Minneapolis, MN 55415, for Respondents.
CASE 0:26-cv-00962-JRT-SGE Doc. 7 Filed 02/06/26 Page 1 of 8

-2-
Petitioner Joffre A.J.L. is a citizen of Ecuador and a resident of Minneapolis,
Minnesota. (Verified Pet. Writ Habeas Corpus (“Pet.”) ¶ 8, Feb. 2, 2026, Docket No. 1.)
Petitioner was detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents on
January 22, 2026, and he alleges that he is being unlawfully detained. (Id. ¶¶ 17, 30–46.)
Respondents answered, arguing that the Court lacks jurisdiction to hear the petition and
that Petitioner’s detention is lawful. 	Because the Court possesses jurisdiction, and
because Respondents are unlawfully detaining Petitioner, the Court will grant the petition
and will order Petitioner’s immediate return to Minnesota and release.
BACKGROUND
Petitioner entered the United States without inspection (Resp. at 1, Feb. 5, 2025,
Docket No. 5), and he is a resident of Minneapolis, Minnesota (Pet. ¶ 8). Petitioner has a
pending application for asylum and does not have a final order of removal. 	(Id. ¶ 15.)
Petitioner’s asylum application is a derivative of his mother’s, and while her application
was denied by an immigration judge on November 7, 2025, Petitioner filed a timely appeal
to the Board of Immigration Appeals, which remains pending. (Id.)
Petitioner was arrested without a warrant and detained along with his mother on
January 22, 2026. (Id. ¶ 17.) Petitioner alleges that “ICE pulled their vehicles in front of
the car that [Petitioner] was driving, causing him to turn off of the road and strike a tree.”
(Id.) Petitioner’s mother had to be hospitalized as a result of their detention. (Id.)
Petitioner was initially brought to the Bishop Henry Whipple building, Fort Snelling,
Minnesota, before being sent to the El Paso Camp East Montana in Texas. 	(Id. ¶ 21.)
CASE 0:26-cv-00962-JRT-SGE Doc. 7 Filed 02/06/26 Page 2 of 8

-3-
Respondents note that this transfer occurred “on or about January 23” and Petitioner
remains in that location. 	(Resp. at 2.) 	Petitioner alleges his continued detention is
unlawful. (Pet. ¶¶ 30–46.)
DISCUSSION
I. 	VENUE
Respondents first seek a transfer of venue, relying on the fact that Petitioner did
not file his habeas petition in this District while he was physically detained here. 	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, 447 (2004).
But exceptions exist to the default district-of-confinement rule. See id. at 435; see
also Xia v. King, Civ. 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. 	Other classes of cases in which the
baseline rules may not control are those in which (1) “the Government was not
forthcoming with respect to . . . the place of detention;” (2) “the Government did inform
the lawyer where a prisoner was being taken but kept moving him;” or (3) “there is an
indication that the Government’s purpose in removing a prisoner were to make it difficult
CASE 0:26-cv-00962-JRT-SGE Doc. 7 Filed 02/06/26 Page 3 of 8

-4-
for his lawyer to know where the habeas petition should be filed.” Id. at 454 (Kennedy,
J., concurring).
“Government-controlled transfers,” like the one in this case—"often executed
within hours of detention and before communication with counsel is possible”—have
been a defining characteristic of Respondents’ coordinated Operation Metro Surge
program in Minnesota. 	See Adriana M.Y.M. v. Easterwood, Civ. No. 26-213, 2026 WL
184721, at *3 (D. Minn. Jan. 24, 2026). In some prior cases, the Court has held that this
District remained proper venue even when an individual was initially detained in
Minnesota but was transferred out of the District before the petition was filed, because
Petitioner’s location was unknown at the time of filing. See Abdiselan A.A. v. Bondi, Civ.
No. 26-358, 2026 WL 161526 at *1–2 (D. Minn. Jan. 21, 2026). The Court reached this
conclusion because Respondents’ practice of transferring detainees to various states,
without notice or apparent justification, has made it practically impossible to promptly
file a habeas petition in the District where the individual is presently located.
Here, even though Petitioner’s location in Texas was known to Petitioner’s counsel
at the time the petition was filed, the Court concludes venue is proper in this District. See
Padilla, 542 U.S. at 451 (Kennedy, J., concurring) (“[T]he question of the proper location
for a habeas petition is best understood as a question of personal jurisdiction or venue.”).
This habeas petition arises in the context of a concerted effort by the government to
arrest residents of this state and immediately transfer them to various other detention
CASE 0:26-cv-00962-JRT-SGE Doc. 7 Filed 02/06/26 Page 4 of 8

-5-
locations, for an unstated purpose and unstated duration, without notifying Petitioner’s
family or counsel as to where or when they may be transferred. The Court concludes that
in this case, the District of Minnesota—where Petitioner resides, was arrested and
detained, and was his last known permanent location—is the proper forum for Petitioner
to challenge the lawfulness of his detention. See Jose A. v. Noem, Civ. No. 26-480, 2026
WL 172524, at *2 (D. Minn. Jan. 22, 2026) (noting that transferring for venue simply
because the petitioner was transported outside the District may “have the effect of
incentivizing forum shopping, as Respondents could quickly transfer detained individuals
to a district of their choosing”); see also Jose V. v. Garcia, No. 26-597, slip op. 9 at 3 (D.
Minn. Jan. 28, 2026).
II. 	MERITS
Turning to the merits, Respondents rely on 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) to justify
Petitioner’s detention. The Court rejects that justification. After thorough review of the
parties’ filings, the Court concludes that the legal issues presented by Petitioner’s habeas
petition are subject to the same analysis the Court recently employed in Herrera Avila v.
Bondi, Civ. No. 25-3741, 2025 WL 2976539 (D. Minn. Oct. 21, 2025) and Romero Santuario
v. Bondi, Civ. 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 	Petitioner’s 	detention 	is 	not 	authorized 	by
§ 1225(b)(2).
CASE 0:26-cv-00962-JRT-SGE Doc. 7 Filed 02/06/26 Page 5 of 8

-6-
To the extent that Respondents argue that Petitioner is an “arriving alien” by virtue
of his asylum application and thus subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1225(b)(1)(B)(ii). 	The Court has addressed and rejected that argument. 	See also
Abdirashid H.M. v. Noem, Civ. No. 25-4779, 2026 WL 127698, at * (D. Minn. Jan. 9, 2026)
Mervis E.A.M. v. Noem, No. 26-861, slip op. 8 at 3–4 (D. Minn. Feb. 6, 2026).
The Court therefore turns to the proper remedy. In some previous cases involving
this issue, the Court 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, Civ. No. 25-4711, 2026 WL 25627, at *3 (D. Minn. Jan. 5, 2026); Lauro M. v.
Bondi, Civ. 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.”).
The Court will grant Joffre A.J.L.’s petition for writ of habeas corpus and will order
that he be returned to Minnesota and released from custody.
ORDER
Based on the foregoing, and all the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED that:
CASE 0:26-cv-00962-JRT-SGE Doc. 7 Filed 02/06/26 Page 6 of 8

-7-
1. 	Petitioner Joffre A.J.L.’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).
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, but 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
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 effects, such as
driver’s 	licenses, 	passports, 	or 	immigration 	documents, 	and 	without
conditions including location tracking or mandatory check-ins.
f. 	Both 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 9,
2026. 	Further, the parties shall advise the Court whether any additional
CASE 0:26-cv-00962-JRT-SGE Doc. 7 Filed 02/06/26 Page 7 of 8

-8-
proceedings in this matter are required and submit any proposals for the
scope of further litigation.
DATED: February 6, 2026 	_____/s/ John R. Tunheim ____
at Minneapolis, Minnesota. 	JOHN R. TUNHEIM
United States District Judge
CASE 0:26-cv-00962-JRT-SGE Doc. 7 Filed 02/06/26 Page 8 of 8