Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Marisol P.Q.,
Petitioner,
v. 	ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION AND
GRANTING MOTION TO ENFORCE
JUDGMENT
Civil File No. 26-1055 (MJD/DJF)
Pamela Bondi, et al.,
Defendants.
John Hayden, Quantum Lex PA, Counsel for Petitioner.
David W. Fuller, Jesus Cruz Rodriguez, Trevor Brown, Assistant United States
Attorneys, Counsel for Respondents.
I. 	INTRODUCTION
The above-entitled matter comes before the Court upon the Report and
Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster filed
February 10, 2026 (Doc. 17) and Petitioner’s Motion to Enforce Judgment (Doc.
24). Respondents have filed objections to the Report and Recommendation.
Pursuant to statute, the Court has conducted a de novo review of the Report and
Recommendation upon the record. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); D. Minn. LR 72.2(b).
Based upon that review, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation of
CASE 0:26-cv-01055-MJD-DJF Doc. 27 Filed 02/18/26 Page 1 of 8

2
Magistrate Judge Foster. In addition, the Court grants Petitioner’s Motion to
Enforce Judgment.
II. 	BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIONS
The Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), which was filed February 10,
2026, recommends that Petitioner’s verified petition for writ of habeas corpus be
granted insofar as Petitioner be released from custody, in pertinent part, inside
the state of Minnesota and “[w]ith all of Petitioner’s personal effects in
Respondents’ possession, such as driver’s license, immigration papers, passport,
cell phone, and keys.” (Doc. 17 at 11 (emphasis in original).)
As it turns out, Petitioner had been released prior to the R&R being filed,
but before anyone notified the Court.
However, on February 11, 2026, Petitioner filed a status report in which
she stated that she was concerned she could be detained again because since her
release from custody, Respondents were requiring her to attend almost daily
check-in appointments (i.e., three appointments in four days). (Doc. 19 at 1-2.)
Petitioner asserted that the check-ins made it impossible for her to work or care
for her grandchild. (Id. at 2.) She was separated from her interpreter during at
least one of these check-in meetings. (Doc. 20 ¶ 7.) In addition, Petitioner was
released without any of her personal belongings. (Doc. 19 at 2.)
CASE 0:26-cv-01055-MJD-DJF Doc. 27 Filed 02/18/26 Page 2 of 8

3
On January 12, 2026, the Court ordered that: 1) neither Respondents nor
their employees could take Petitioner into custody or move her out of Minnesota;
2) all conditions on Petitioner’s release had to be removed; and 3) Respondents
had to return all Petitioner’s personal belongings and documents on or before
12:00 p.m. Central Time on February 13, 2026. (Doc. 21.)
Also on February 12, Respondents filed objections to the R&R. (Doc. 22)
Respondents argued that Petitioner’s petition is “moot because Petitioner was
released from custody two days before the R&R was issued.” (Id. at 1; Doc. 22-1
(Pet. detention record).)
In support of their objections, Respondents filed the declaration of St. Paul
ICE Deputy Field Office Director Tauria Rich, who explained “the process for
managing detainees’ property and documents and ICE efforts to comply with
any court order regarding the handling and return of an alien’s property or
documents.” (Doc. 23 ¶ 4.) Director Rich’s declaration is not meant to address
the specific circumstances of this, or any other case. (Id.) After describing how
the process is supposed to work, Director Rich attests that if property is lost,
detainees can fill out a standard form to recover monetary damages. (Id. ¶ 12.)
CASE 0:26-cv-01055-MJD-DJF Doc. 27 Filed 02/18/26 Page 3 of 8

4
On February 13, Petitioner filed a Motion to Enforce Judgment.1 (Doc. 24.)
Petitioner’s counsel, John Hayden, attests that at 1:00 p.m. on February 13, 2026,
he went to the Whipple Federal Building to retrieve Petitioner’s belongings that
the Court ordered Respondents to return. (Doc. 25 ¶ 2.) Enforcement and
Removal Operations (“ERO”) personnel returned everything except Petitioner’s
passport. (Id. ¶¶ 5, 10-11.) When asked if the passport might have been retained
under a separate file, ERO personnel told Mr. Hayden that he would have to
submit a FOIA request for that information. (Id. ¶ 11.) Mr. Hayden believes
Petitioner’s passport is still in the Whipple Building. (Id. ¶ 13.)
III. 	DISCUSSION
A. 	Objection to the Report and Recommendation
Respondents object to the R&R on the grounds that the petition is now
moot because Petitioner has been released from custody. (Doc. 22 at 1.) The
Court will overrule this objection.
Throughout the litigation of this case, Respondents have been willfully
blind as to the relief Petitioner seeks. Of course she wanted her liberty. She was
1 The Court notes that this motion is inaccurately titled. The Court has not yet
entered judgment in this case. That being said, the Court will continue to refer to
this motion by the title it had when it was filed.
CASE 0:26-cv-01055-MJD-DJF Doc. 27 Filed 02/18/26 Page 4 of 8

5
being detained in violation of due process. That was obvious. But Petitioner also
wants to be made whole.
Petitioner’s Columbian passport is an important legal document that will
likely be difficult, if not impossible, to replace given her current status as an
asylum-seeker in this country. Accordingly, monetary compensation as
suggested by Director Rich is an insufficient remedy here. Likewise, the
suggestion that she embark on a lengthy FOIA process when no one who was
responsible for Petitioner’s property while she was in custody even attempted to
look for the passport just rewards laziness. (See Doc. 25.)
This objection is overruled.
B. 	Objection to the Discovery Order
Respondents object to the motion for expedited discovery because it is
“overly burdensome and outside the scope of habeas corpus relief.” (Doc. 22 at
1.) They provide no support for this statement and do not take issue with
anything specific in the discovery order. Respondents further state that
Petitioner’s discovery request is moot because Petitioner has already been
released from custody into Minnesota. (Id.)
To the extent Respondents mean to object to the conclusions in Judge
Foster’s discovery order, the Court overrules the objection. Nothing in the order
CASE 0:26-cv-01055-MJD-DJF Doc. 27 Filed 02/18/26 Page 5 of 8

6
is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. See D. Minn. LR 72.2(a)(3)(A). The order
is well-tailored to obtain the type of information that will assist the Court and
Petitioner to understand just what happened in this case.
Moreover, the ends do not justify the means. Respondents cannot release a
petitioner as a quick way to cure constitutional violations and avoid answering
tough questions. This is no cure at all, especially when Respondents still have
Petitioner’s passport. Petitioner is entitled to understand just how ICE could lose
both her and her passport during her detention. (See, e.g., Docs. 5 at 2; 24 at 1-2.)
C. 	Petitioner’s Motion to Enforce Judgment
In this motion, Petitioner asks the Court 1) to order Respondents to
“retrieve Petitioner’s passport themselves and deliver it to counsel of record,”
and 2) to issue an order to show cause why Respondents should not be held in
contempt for their willful failure to comply with the February 13, 2026 deadline
to return Petitioner’s passport. (Doc. 24 at 2-3.)
For the reasons discussed above, the Court will grant the motion.
IV. 	ORDER
Based upon the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED:
CASE 0:26-cv-01055-MJD-DJF Doc. 27 Filed 02/18/26 Page 6 of 8

7
1. 	The Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster filed February 10, 2026. [Doc. 17.]
2. 	Petitioner Marisol P.Q.’s Verified Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [Doc.
1] is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
a. 	Respondents are ordered to conduct a meaningful search for
Petitioner’s passport, document the steps they have taken to find the
passport, and return the passport to Petitioner’s counsel on or before
the Show Cause Hearing on February 24, 2026;2
b. Petitioner is ordered to file a status report in CMECF if Respondents
return the passport prior to the Show Cause Hearing. In the report,
Petitioner should inform the Court if the February 24, 2026 Show
Cause Hearing should be canceled;
c. 	Any motion for attorney fees and costs pursuant to the Equal Access
to Justice Act must be filed within 21 days of entry of judgment in
this matter, along with a well-reasoned memorandum of authorities
explaining why an award of fees and costs is warranted; and
d. The remainder of Petitioner Marisol P.Q.’s Petition is DENIED
without prejudice.
3. 	Petitioner’s Motion to Enforce Judgment [Doc. 24] is GRANTED.
a. 	Respondents are ordered to conduct a meaningful search for
Petitioner’s passport, document the steps they have taken to find the
passport, and return the passport to Petitioner’s counsel on or before
the Show Cause Hearing on February 24, 2026;
2 This modification of the R&R accounts for changed circumstances since
Magistrate Judge Foster filed her recommendations.
CASE 0:26-cv-01055-MJD-DJF Doc. 27 Filed 02/18/26 Page 7 of 8

8
b. Respondents are ordered to appear at a hearing at 2:00 p.m. Central
Time on February 24, 2026 at the Diana E. Murphy United States
Courthouse, 300 South Fourth Street, Minneapolis, MN 55415 to
show cause why they should not be held in contempt for failing to
comply with the Court’s February 13, 2026 deadline to return
Petitioner’s passport; and
c. 	Petitioner is ordered to file a status report in CMECF if Respondents
return the passport prior to the hearing. In the report, Petitioner
should inform the Court if the February 24, 2026 Show Cause
hearing should be canceled.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: February 18, 2026 	s/Michael J. Davis
Michael J. Davis
United States District Court
CASE 0:26-cv-01055-MJD-DJF Doc. 27 Filed 02/18/26 Page 8 of 8