Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Andres R.,
Petitioner,
v.
Kristi Noem, Secretary, U.S. Department of
Homeland Security; Todd M. Lyons, Acting
Director of Immigration and Customs
Enforcement, Immigration and Customs
Enforcement; David Easterwood, Acting
Director of Enforcement and Removal
Operations, St. Paul Field Office,
Immigration and Customs Enforcement;
Pamela Bondi, U.S. Attorney General;
Executive Office for Immigration Review;
Warden, ERO Ft. Snelling, Detention
Facility, Ft. Snelling, Minnesota,
Respondents.
File No. 26-cv-1033 (ECT/EMB)
OPINION AND ORDER
Kimberley Woods, Khanh Nguyen Law Office, Minneapolis, MN, for Petitioner Andres
R.
Trevor Brown, David W. Fuller, and David R. Hackworthy, United States Attorney’s
Office, 	Minneapolis, 	MN, 	for 	Respondents 	Kristi 	Noem, 	Todd 	M. 	Lyons, 	David
Easterwood, Pamela Bondi, Executive Office for Immigration Review, and Warden, ERO
Ft. Snelling Detention Facility.
Petitioner Andres R. is a Mexican citizen who “entered the [United States] on or
around 2000 near Douglas, Arizona.” Pet. [ECF No. 1] ¶¶ 3, 24. Andres “did not encounter
[Department of Homeland Security] officials” when he entered the country. 	Id. ¶ 3.
Andres “was convicted of a DWI in July of 2015 in Hennepin County, Minnesota, at which
CASE 0:26-cv-01033-ECT-EMB Doc. 9 Filed 02/10/26 Page 1 of 4

2
time he was detained and placed into removal proceedings.” 	Id. ¶ 4. 	Andres “was
subsequently released and has a pending application for Cancellation of Removal before
the [Executive Office for Immigration Review] court at Ft. Snelling, Minnesota.” Id. ¶ 5;
see ECF No. 5-4 (“Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status.”).
Andres “is currently scheduled for a Master Calendar hearing before the [immigration
judge] . . . on February 23, 2026.” Pet. ¶ 6. According to the Petition, Andres “has fully
complied with all [Department of Homeland Security] requirements since his 2015
release[,] including all court appearances, biometrics, and [Immigration and Customs
Enforcement] check-ins.” Id. ¶ 7. On February 4, 2026, Andres “was re-detained . . . while
complying with his check-ins.” Id. ¶ 9. When his Petition was filed, Andres was “in the
physical custody of Respondents at the ERO Ft. Snelling Detention Facility at Ft. Snelling,
Minnesota.” 	Id. ¶ 1. 	After his Petition was filed, the Court requested that Andres
supplement the Petition, “clarifying whether [Andres] is subject to a final order of removal
that has become administratively final, and if [Andres] is subject to an administratively
final order of removal, explaining why [Andres] is not subject to detention under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1231(a).” ECF No. 4. In that supplement, Andres asserts that he “is not subject to a final
order of removal.” 	ECF No. 5 ¶ 2. 	The supplement also stated that after the Petition’s
filing, Andres was transferred to “ERO El Paso Camp East Montana” in El Paso, Texas.
ECF No. 5-5 at 1; see ECF No. 5 ¶ 5. Respondents do not challenge the Petition’s facts.
See ECF No. 8.
CASE 0:26-cv-01033-ECT-EMB Doc. 9 Filed 02/10/26 Page 2 of 4

3
Andres challenges his detention under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Pet. ¶ 18. According to
Andres, his detention violates his right to due process under the Fifth Amendment and the
Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”). See Pet. ¶¶ 31–41.
Andres’s Petition is unclear for several reasons. (1) The Petition asserts a violation
of the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause, but it does not explain what process Andres
was due. Nor does the Petition describe, other than generally, how the Mathews v. Eldridge
factors “weigh heavily in the favor of the Petitioner.” 	Pet. ¶ 33; see 424 U.S. 319, 335
(1976). 	(2) 	The Petition asserts an APA claim, but it provides only a general statement
that “Respondents through its [sic] recent administrative decision failed to articulate any
reasonable explanations for new [sic] interpretation of the Act,” and that this “represents a
change in the agencies’ policies and positions that negates the plain language of the Act,
the will of Congress, and decades of administrative precedent.” 	Pet. ¶ 41. 	The Petition
provides no further basis for the APA claim. 	(3) The Petition cites cases that analyze
habeas petitions under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1225 and 1226, see Pet. ¶ 35, but the Petition mentions
8 U.S.C. § 1225 only once—as a sub-heading for Andres’s APA claim, see Pet. at 9 (under
“Count Two,” stating “Detaining Petitioner Pursuant to an Unlawful Interpretation of 8
U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) violates the Administrative Procedure Act”). 	The Petition does not
reference § 1226, nor does it connect any of its facts to an analysis under §§ 1225 or 1226.
This leads me to conclude that Andres has not asserted claims under those statutes. (4) The
Petition references Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 687, 690 (2001), without any analysis
as to how that case may apply to Andres’s present detention. 	See Pet. ¶¶ 1, 34, 43. (5)
The Petition once references “Bautista,” see Pet. ¶ 32, perhaps referring to Maldonado
CASE 0:26-cv-01033-ECT-EMB Doc. 9 Filed 02/10/26 Page 3 of 4

4
Bautista v. Santacruz, --- F. Supp. 3d. ---, No. 5:25-cv-01873-SSS-BFM, 2025 WL
3713987, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2025), but with no reference to how or why that case
would apply. See also ECF No. 5 ¶ 11 (stating that “[t]he Respondents are bound by, and
Petitioner is entitled to release pursuant to[,] Bautista”).1
Andres has neither identified a federal statute that Respondents are violating by
detaining Andres, nor articulated a plausible constitutional argument to support his release.
Andres’s Petition will be denied without prejudice to its re-filing.
ORDER
Based on the foregoing, and on all the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS
ORDERED THAT Andres R.’s Verified Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [ECF No. 1]
is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: February 10, 2026 	s/ Eric C. Tostrud
Eric C. Tostrud
United States District Court
1 	Respondents’ one-paragraph answer is likewise perplexing, considering the nature
of Andres’s Petition. The answer states that “Petitioner filed this petition . . . to secure a
bond hearing in connection with Petitioner’s detention by U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement.” ECF No. 8 (emphasis added). Although Andres mentions that ICE refused
to set bond, see Pet. ¶¶ 13, 24, he does not tie this failure to set bond to the Petition’s claims,
nor does he request a bond hearing as relief. See Pet. at 11–12.
CASE 0:26-cv-01033-ECT-EMB Doc. 9 Filed 02/10/26 Page 4 of 4