Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Victor O.,
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.
File No. 26-cv-1122 (ECT/LIB)
OPINION AND ORDER
Kira Aakre Kelley, Climate Defense Project, Minneapolis, MN, for Petitioner Victor O.
Matthew Isihara and David W. Fuller, United States Attorney’s Office, Minneapolis, MN,
for Respondents Pamela Bondi, Kristi Noem, Todd M. Lyons, and David Easterwood.
Petitioner Victor O. is a Mexican citizen who has lived in the United States since
approximately 2002. 	Pet. [ECF No. 1] ¶¶ 7, 12. 	Victor “does not have a final order of
removal.” 	Id. ¶ 13. 	Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) arrested Victor on
February 5, 2026, at approximately 3:00 p.m., as part of “Operation Metro Surge.” 	Id.
¶¶ 15–16. The Petition alleges, “[u]pon information and belief,” that “Respondents had no
CASE 0:26-cv-01122-ECT-LIB Doc. 7 Filed 02/11/26 Page 1 of 7

2
warrant” for Victor’s arrest. 	Id. ¶ 15.1 	At the time of his Petition’s filing, Victor was
believed to be detained at the Bishop Henry Whipple Federal Building at Fort Snelling,
Minnesota. Id. ¶ 7.
Victor challenges his detention under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Pet. ¶ 2. He claims he has
been wrongly classified as a § 1225(b)(2) detainee (whose detention is mandatory) rather
than a § 1226(a) detainee (whose detention is discretionary and who is entitled to a bond
hearing). Pet. ¶¶ 26–29; see Jose J.O.E. v. Bondi, 797 F. Supp. 3d 957, 961–62 (D. Minn.
2025) (explaining legal framework). According to Victor, that misclassification and denial
of a bond hearing violate his right to due process under the Fifth Amendment, the
Immigration and Nationality Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act. See Pet. ¶¶ 30–
46. 	Victor seeks issuance of a writ of habeas corpus requiring his release unless
Respondents provide a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a); issuance of an order for his
release without release conditions in Minnesota, and directing Respondents to ensure his
safety, provide advance notice to his counsel of his release, and return his personal effects;
that the Court retain jurisdiction over the matter to decide any future motion for an award
of attorneys’ fees and costs; and “any other and further relief that this Court may deem just
and proper.” See id. at 13–14.
Recognizing that “[t]his petition raises legal and factual issues similar to those in
prior habeas petitions this Court has decided,” Respondents rely on their arguments in the
appeal of Avila v. Bondi, No. 25-cv-3741 (JRT/SGE), 2025 WL 2976539 (D. Minn. Oct.
1 	The existence of a warrant is the only disputed fact in Victor’s Petition, as
Respondents attached a copy of a warrant to their answer. 	See ECF No. 5 at 2; ECF No.
5-1. That warrant is discussed infra.
CASE 0:26-cv-01122-ECT-LIB Doc. 7 Filed 02/11/26 Page 2 of 7

3
21, 2025), appeal docketed, No. 25-3248 (8th Cir. Nov. 10, 2025). 	See ECF No. 5 at 1.
This raises an issue of statutory interpretation2 that courts in this District have repeatedly
considered and rejected, and it will be rejected here as well.
Victor has 	shown he 	has been misclassified under 	§ 1225(b)(2) rather than
§ 1226(a). 	As courts have explained, the former statute applies to applicants “seeking
admission,” and the latter to “aliens already in the country.” 	8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A);
Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281, 289 (2018) (construing 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and (c));
see Francisco T. v. Bondi, 797 F. Supp. 3d 970, 974–76 (D. Minn. 2025); Belsai D.S. v.
Bondi, --- F. Supp. 3d ---, No. 25-cv-3682 (KMM/EMB), 2025 WL 2802947, at *6–7 (D.
Minn. Oct. 1, 2025); Eliseo A.A. v. Olson, --- F. Supp. 3d ---, No. 25-cv-3381 (JWB/DJF),
2025 WL 2886729, at *2–4 (D. Minn. Oct. 8, 2025); Avila v. Bondi, No. 25-cv-3741
(JRT/SGE), 2025 WL 2976539, at *5–7 (D. Minn. Oct. 21, 2025), appeal filed, No. 25-
3248 (8th Cir. Nov. 10, 2025); Andres R.E. v. Bondi, No. 25-cv-3946 (NEB/DLM), 2025
WL 3146312, at *2–3 (D. Minn. Nov. 4, 2025); E.M. v. Noem, 25-cv-3975 (SRN/DTS),
2025 WL 3157839, at *4–8 (D. Minn. Nov. 12, 2025); Santos M.C. v. Olson, No. 25-cv-
4264 (PJS/DJF), 2025 WL 3281787, at *2–3 (D. Minn. Nov. 25, 2025). As of this writing,
two federal courts of appeals have ruled on the question, one reaching and one rejecting
this conclusion. See Castañon-Nava v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 161 F.4th 1048, 1062
2 	To the extent Respondents challenge this Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction to
consider Victor’s Petition via their arguments in Avila, consistent with previous rulings on
this issue, I find that the jurisdiction-stripping provisions of § 1252(a)(5), (b)(9), and (g)
do not apply to “the narrow question whether a noncitizen is subject to discretionary
detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226 or mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2).” 	Fernando
F.P.D. v. Brott, No. 25-cv-4455 (ECT/ECW), 2025 WL 3675151, at *2 (D. Minn. Dec. 17,
2025) (citing cases).
CASE 0:26-cv-01122-ECT-LIB Doc. 7 Filed 02/11/26 Page 3 of 7

4
(7th Cir. 2025) (concluding that respondent was not likely to prevail on the merits that
petitioner was subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)); Buenrostro-Mendez v.
Bondi, --- F.4th ---, Nos. 25-20496, 25-40701, 2026 WL 323330, at *1 (5th Cir. Feb. 6,
2026) (finding petitioner was subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)). Victor
has lived in the United States for approximately twenty-three years, Pet. ¶ 12, and I find
his detention falls under § 1226(a) and not § 1225(b)(2).3
The final issue is the appropriate remedy. 	Section 1226 provides that “[o]n a
warrant issued by the Attorney General, an alien may be arrested and detained.”
8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) (emphasis added). 	“Issuance of a warrant is a necessary condition to
justify 	discretionary 	detention 	under 	section 	1226(a).” 	Chogllo 	Chafla 	v. 	Scott,
--- F. Supp. 3d ---, No. 2:25-cv-00437, 2025 WL 2688541, at *11 (D. Me. Sep. 21, 2025),
appeal filed (Nov. 7, 2025). 	“[I]t follows that absent a warrant a noncitizen may not be
arrested 	and 	detained 	under 	section 	1226(a).” 	Id. 	(emphasis 	in 	original); 	accord
Chiliquinga Yumbillo v. Stamper, No. 2:25-cv-00479, 2025 WL 2783642, at *5 (D. Me.
Sep. 30, 2025); J.A.C.P. v. Wofford, No. 1:25-cv-01354, 2025 WL 3013328, at *8 (E.D.
Cal. Oct. 27, 2025); see also Florida v. United States, 660 F. Supp. 3d 1239, 1276 (N.D.
Fla. 2023) (stating § 1226 “is not even triggered unless an arrest warrant is issued” and that
“[i]f [an] alien has not been arrested on a warrant, then the subsequent provisions giving
3 	Respondents do not argue that Victor is subject to mandatory detention pursuant to
8 U.S.C. § 1226(c), or that any other statutory scheme other than that raised in the Petition
would apply to Victor’s detention. See ECF No. 5.
CASE 0:26-cv-01122-ECT-LIB Doc. 7 Filed 02/11/26 Page 4 of 7

5
the Attorney General discretion to detain or release ‘the arrested alien’ are likewise not
triggered”), appeal dismissed, 2023 WL 5212561 (11th Cir. July 11, 2023).
Respondents have provided a purported warrant for Victor with their answer, but it
raises more questions than it answers. Specifically, Respondents attached to their answer
an ICE Form I-205 Warrant of Removal/Deportation dated “February 7, 2026,” which
post-dates Victor’s arrest by two days, and post-dates the filing of his Petition by one day.
Compare ECF No. 5-1 at 1, with Pet. ¶ 15. 	The attached warrant states that Victor “is
subject to removal/deportation from the United States, based upon a final order by[] an
immigration judge in exclusion, deportation, or removal proceedings . . . and pursuant to
[Section 212(a)(6)(A)(i)] of the Immigration and Nationality Act.” ECF No. 5-1 at 1. The
attached warrant is signed “for Samuel J. Olson” who is a “Field Office Director,” but the
signature does not identify the signer. 	See id. 	Respondents did not file a declaration
authenticating or describing the attached warrant—rather, the warrant was merely attached
to Respondents’ answer, which included a one-line explanation that “[t]he Government
would also like to note that it has attached a warrant to this Petition, satisfying the Court’s
inquiry in this regard.” See ECF No. 5 at 2.4 Respondents make no legal argument about
the attached warrant’s legal effects, including how a warrant signed two days after a
petitioner’s arrest could satisfy § 1226(a)’s requirements. Moreover, Respondents’ answer
does not dispute that Victor “does not have a final order of removal,” id. ¶ 13, and
Respondents do not provide any other evidence or argument that Victor could be subject
4 	I understand this as a reference to the Court’s briefing order, which ordered
Respondents to include in their answer “[w]hether the absence of a warrant preceding
Petitioner’s arrest necessitates Petitioner’s immediate release.” ECF No. 3 at 2.
CASE 0:26-cv-01122-ECT-LIB Doc. 7 Filed 02/11/26 Page 5 of 7

6
to a final order of removal, nor do they specifically challenge the Court’s jurisdiction based
on the existence of a final order of removal. 	See ECF Nos. 5, 5-1. 	On these facts,
Respondents’ unauthenticated, unexplained warrant, purportedly signed two days after
Victor’s arrest, is insufficient to satisfy what I understand to be the requirements of
§ 1226(a). Respondents have not advanced any other argument that Victor’s release is an
unwarranted remedy. See ECF No. 5.
“[R]elease is an available and appropriate remedy” for “detention that lacks a lawful
predicate.” 	Order on Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus at 6, Vedat C. v. Bondi, No.
25-cv-4642 (JWB/DTS) (D. Minn. Dec. 19, 2025), ECF No. 9 (citing Munaf v. Geren,
553 U.S. 674, 693 (2008)). 	“Where the record shows Respondents have not identified a
valid statutory basis for detention in the first place, the remedy is not to supply one through
further proceedings.” 	Id.; see Chogllo Chafla, --- F. Supp. 3d ---, 2025 WL 2688541, at
*11 (“Since the Government did not comply with the plain language of section 1226(a),
[petitioners’] immediate release is justified.”); J.A.C.P., 2025 WL 3013328, at *8 (same);
Chiliquinga Yumbillo, 2025 WL 2783642, at *5 (reaching same conclusion); see also
Munaf, 553 U.S. at 693 (“Habeas is at its core a remedy for unlawful executive detention.
The typical remedy for such detention is, of course, release.” (citation modified)).5
5 	The resolution of this statutory-interpretation question in Victor’s favor makes it
unnecessary to address the Petition’s remaining grounds.
CASE 0:26-cv-01122-ECT-LIB Doc. 7 Filed 02/11/26 Page 6 of 7

7
ORDER
Therefore, based on the foregoing, and on all the files, records, and proceedings
herein, IT IS ORDERED THAT Petitioner Victor O.’s Verified Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus [ECF No. 1] is GRANTED as follows:
1. 	Petitioner is not subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2),
and is instead subject to detention, if at all, pursuant to the discretionary provisions of
8 U.S.C. § 1226.
2. 	Respondents shall release Petitioner from custody as follows:
a. 	If Petitioner remains detained in Minnesota, Respondents shall release
Petitioner from custody as soon as practicable, but not later than 48 hours after entry of this
Order.
b. 	If Petitioner has been moved outside of Minnesota, as soon as
practicable, but not later than 72 hours after entry of this Order, Respondents shall return
Petitioner to Minnesota and then release Petitioner from custody.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: February 11, 2026, at 7:50 p.m. 	s/ Eric C. Tostrud
Eric C. Tostrud
United States District Court
CASE 0:26-cv-01122-ECT-LIB Doc. 7 Filed 02/11/26 Page 7 of 7