Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Mamadou B.,
Petitioner,
v.
David Easterwood, Director of St. Paul
Field Office, U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement; Kristi Noem,
Secretary of the U.S. Department of
Homeland Security; and Pamela Bondi,
Attorney General of the United States, in
their official capacities,
Respondents.
Case No. 26-cv-01221 (MJD/ECW)
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Mamadou B.’s1 Petition for a Writ of
Habeas Corpus, filed on February 8, 2026 (Dkt. 1) and Emergency Motion for Temporary
Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. 3) (“TRO Motion”). According to
the Petition, Petitioner is a citizen of Guinea who has resided in the United States since
December 2023. (Dkt. 1 ¶ 14.) On February 8, 2026, he was detained by Immigration
and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”), has been in ICE custody since that date, and,
according to Petitioner, detained at a Federal building in Fort Snelling, Minnesota. (Id.
¶¶ 1, 10, 17, 18.) Petitioner argues that he is subject only to discretionary detention under
1 	This District has adopted a policy of using only the first name and last initial of
any nongovernmental parties in orders and report and recommendation in immigration
matters.
CASE 0:26-cv-01221-MJD-ECW Doc. 10 Filed 02/13/26 Page 1 of 11

2
8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), not mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2), and that he
must be therefore released or in the alternative, be provided with a bond hearing pursuant
to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and that once bond is set, that the Department of Homeland
Security be prohibited from filing Form EOIR-43 staying the bond. (Id. at 11-12.)2 The
TRO Motion asserts that Petitioner was unlawfully detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C.
§ 1225(b)(2), when he was apprehended and arrested by federal agents, without a
warrant, on February 8, 2026, and should be released, or in the alternative, asks that this
Court prevent his transfer while the instant Petition is pending. (Dkt. 3 at 1-2, 7.)
On February 8, 2026, U.S. District Judge Michael J. Davis issued an Order
requiring Respondents to file their answer no later than February 10, 2026, certifying the
true cause and proper duration of Petitioner’s confinement and showing cause why the
writ should not be granted in this case. (Dkt. 5 at 1 ¶ 2.) In addition, Judge Davis
required that Respondents’ answer include “affidavits and exhibits as are needed to
establish the lawfulness and correct duration of Petitioner’s detention” and “[w]hether the
absence of a warrant preceding Petitioner’s arrest necessitates Petitioner’s immediate
release.” (Id. at 1-2 ¶ 3(a), (d).) Judge Davis also found that “habeas jurisdiction
attached at the time of Petitioner’s apprehension in this District” and that “jurisdiction is
not defeated by any subsequent decision by Respondents to transfer Petitioner to another
2 	Page number citations in this Report and Recommendation are to the page number
assigned by CM/ECF.
CASE 0:26-cv-01221-MJD-ECW Doc. 10 Filed 02/13/26 Page 2 of 11

3
state.”3 (Id. at 2-3 ¶ 5(a)-(b).) In turn, Judge Davis enjoined Respondents “from
removing Petitioner from the District of Minnesota” until a final decision has been made
on the Petition and ordered Respondents “to immediately return Petitioner to Minnesota”
if he has already been removed from Minnesota. (Id. at 3 ¶¶ 6-7.)
On February 10, 2026, Respondents filed a Response (Dkt. 8), and on February
12, 2026, Petitioner filed a Reply (Dkt. 9). The case is now ripe for decision.
I. 	FACTS
Petitioner alleges, and Respondents do not dispute, that he is a citizen of Guinea,
that he entered the United States without inspection, and that he has resided in the United
States for more than two years. (Dkt. 1 ¶ 14.)
A December 7, 2023 a Notice to Appear was issued by the Department of
Homeland Security (“the Notice”) to Petitioner in Tucson, Arizona. (Dkt. 1-2 at 1.) 	The
Notice states that Petitioner entered the United States on at or near Lukeville, Arizona, on
or about December 4, 2023, and that he was “not then admitted or paroled after
inspection by an Immigration Officer.” (Id.) Noticeably, the Issuing Officer did not
3 	Respondents do not directly dispute the Court’s jurisdiction over the Petition,
especially given that it appears that Petitioner has been detained in Minnesota during the
relevant period. Moreover, “the Court finds that none of the jurisdiction-stripping
provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1252 apply to the question of whether mandatory detention
under § 1225(b)(2) or discretionary detention under § 1226(a) applies.” Juan A. v. Bondi,
No. 26-CV-0415 (SRN/EMB), 2026 WL 161364, at *2 n.2 (D. Minn. Jan. 21, 2026)
(citing Maldonado v. Olson, 795 F. Supp. 3d 1134 (D. Minn. 2025)). Further, the Court
finds that requiring administrative exhaustion of the claims in the Petititon would be
futile in light of Respondents’ consistent position taken with respect the arguments set
forth in Avila, see infra Part III.
CASE 0:26-cv-01221-MJD-ECW Doc. 10 Filed 02/13/26 Page 3 of 11

4
check the box on the form that states “You are an arriving alien.” (Id.) The Notice also
states:
On the basis of the foregoing, it is charged that you are subject to removal
from the United States pursuant to the following provision(s) of law:
212(a)(6)(A)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended, in that
you are an alien present in the United States without being admitted or
paroled, or who arrived in the United States at any time or place other than
as designated by the Attorney General.
(Id.) Petitioner was ordered to appear before an immigration judge in Minnesota on
November 5, 2024. (Id.) On March 6, 2024, Petitioner filed an asylum application with
the immigration court, which remains pending, and he is not currently scheduled for any
immigration hearings. (Dkt. 1 ¶ 16.) Again, Petitioner was arrested by ICE on February
8, 2026, in Minnesota. (Dkt. 1 ¶ 17.)
Respondents have provided no additional evidence or facts about the
circumstances or reason for Petitioner’s detention, other than to assert that an examining
immigration officer has determined that Petitioner is “not clearly and without a doubt
entitled to be admitted” and is therefore “is ineligible for release or bond.” (Dkt. 8 at 1.)
Respondents do not represent that a warrant preceded Petitioner’s arrest and in fact do not
respond at all to Judge Davis’s order to inform the Court whether the absence of a
warrant preceding Petitioner’s arrest necessitates Petitioner’s immediate release. (See id.)
Respondents do assert in their response that Petitioner is currently detained at the
Kandiyohi County Jail, which is located in Minnesota. (See id. at 1.)
CASE 0:26-cv-01221-MJD-ECW Doc. 10 Filed 02/13/26 Page 4 of 11

5
II. 	LEGAL STANDARD
A federal court may provide habeas relief to a person who is detained in violation
of the Constitution or laws of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). “The right to
challenge the legality of a person’s confinement through a petition for a writ of habeas
corpus extends to immigration-related detention.” Diego L., v. Bondi, et al., No. 26-CV-
382 (JMB/DJF), 2026 WL 145206, at *2 (D. Minn. Jan. 20, 2026) (citation modified).
Petitioner has the burden of proving his entitlement to relief by a preponderance of the
evidence. Jose J.O.E. v. Bondi, 797 F. Supp. 3d 957, 965 (D. Minn. 2025). As U.S.
Magistrate Judge John F. Docherty recently explained in a similar case:
Two provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act are relevant to this
case. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2), which applies to “an alien seeking
admission” to the United States, detention while immigration proceedings
are conducted is mandatory, while under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), which applies
to an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, detention is
discretionary and may only be imposed after a hearing.
Mahamed C.A. v. Noem, No. 25-CV-4551 (MJD/JFD), 2025 WL 3771299, at *1-2 (D.
Minn. Dec. 16, 2025), R. & R. adopted sub nom., 2025 WL 3754012 (D. Minn. Dec. 29,
2025).
III. 	ANALYSIS
As stated above, Petitioner seeks immediate release, or in the alternative,
that he be provided with a bond hearing pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). (Dkt. 1 at 1, 11-
12.)
The Response makes the following argument for denial of the Petition:
This petition raises legal and factual issues similar to those in prior habeas
petitions this Court has decided. Those issues are currently before the Eighth
CASE 0:26-cv-01221-MJD-ECW Doc. 10 Filed 02/13/26 Page 5 of 11

6
Circuit on expedited review in Avila v. Bondi, No. 25-3248 (8th Cir. docketed
Nov. 10, 2025), and the Fifth Circuit recently agreed with the government’s
position in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, -- F.4th --, 2026 WL 323330 (5th
Cir. Feb. 6, 2026). Rather than belabor these proceedings by rearguing points
the Court has considered and rejected, Federal Respondents assert all
arguments raised by the government in Avila and endorsed by Buenorostro-
Mendez and respectfully request that the Court preserve those arguments for
any appeal in this case. Cf. Mauro Johnny P.P. v. Lyons, Case No. 26-cv-204
(LMP/DJF), Order, ECF No. 5 at 2 n.1 (calling abbreviated response “a
model example” in the circumstances, as it “preserves the Government’s
arguments for appeal while avoiding the effort of filing the same recycled
template that this Court has already rejected”).
(Dkt. 8 at 1-2.) Respondents did not make any specific arguments to support their
request for denial. (Id.)
The crux of the issue here is whether Petitioner, who has lived in the United States
for over 2 years, should be treated as an “applicant[] for admission” under § 1225,
subjecting him to mandatory detention, or as “an alien” who was “arrested and detained
pending a decision on whether the alien is to be removed from the United States” under
§ 1226, and therefore entitled to a bond hearing before an immigration judge.
The Court agrees with the numerous thoughtful and persuasive decisions
addressing this issue in this District and nationwide which overwhelmingly support
granting the Petition. See Mahamed C.A., 2025 WL 3771299, at *2-3 (“The United
States concedes that Petitioner’s claim is similar to numerous other immigration cases in
this District in which citizens detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
seek bond hearings, in every one of which a district judge of this Court has ruled against
the government’s new interpretation. . . . Going beyond Minnesota to consider this
question on a national level, over 300 cases (and counting) have been decided adversely
CASE 0:26-cv-01221-MJD-ECW Doc. 10 Filed 02/13/26 Page 6 of 11

7
to the government.”). As another judge in this District recently explained: “Courts have
overwhelmingly rejected Respondents’ interpretation that section 1225(b)(2) requires the
mandatory detention of all noncitizens living in the country who are ‘inadmissible’
because they entered the United States without inspection.” Martin R. v. Noem, No. 26-
CV-168 (JMB/LIB), 2026 WL 115024, at *2 (D. Minn. Jan. 15, 2026). The Court sees
no reason to depart from this well-reasoned consensus, and adopts the statutory analysis
set forth in Martin R. and the myriad other cases rejecting Respondents’ position.
The Court acknowledges and has carefully reviewed, but is not persuaded by the
Fifth Circuit’s recent decision, relied upon by Respondents, in Buenrostro-Mendez v.
Bondi, -- F.4th --, 2026 WL 323330 (5th Cir. Feb. 6, 2026). In contrast to that decision,
which not binding on this Court, the Court reads 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) to apply only to
persons who are “presently seeking admission at the time of their detention.” See Beltran
v. Bondi, No. 25-04604 (MJD/DTS), 2025 WL 3719856, at *3 (D. Minn. Dec. 23, 2025)
(“To be seeking admission means to be seeking entry, which ‘by its own force implies a
coming from outside.’” (quoting United States ex rel. Claussen v. Day, 279 U.S. 398, 401
(1929)); see also Castañon-Nava v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 161 F.4th 1048, 1060-
61 (7th Cir. 2025) (“The question is whether § 1225(b)(2)(A) covers any noncitizen who
is unlawfully already in the United States as well as those who present themselves at its
borders. For their part, Plaintiffs highlight a host of cases where courts have held that
ICE’s authority to detain a noncitizen discovered within the country derives from §
1226(a) and not from § 1225(b). Based upon the text and structure of the two provisions,
we believe that Plaintiffs have the better argument on the current record.”) (citation
CASE 0:26-cv-01221-MJD-ECW Doc. 10 Filed 02/13/26 Page 7 of 11

8
modified); Edwin C. R., v. Bondi, No. 26-00355 (MJD/JFD), 2026 WL 185068, at *2 (D.
Minn. Jan. 25, 2026) (distinguishing the minority line of cases). Further, as argued by
Petitioner in his Reply (Dkt. 9 at 7), Respondents’ own Notice to Appear charges him as
“an alien present in the United States who has not been admitted or paroled” and not as
“an arriving alien,” further reinforcing that Petitioner was not seeking admission at the
time of his detention for the purposes of § 1225(b)(2). See Beltran, 2025 WL 3719856,
at *3-4 (citing Andres R.E. v. Bondi, No. 25-CV-3946 (NEB/DLM), 2025 WL 3146312,
at *3 (D. Minn. Nov. 4, 2025)).
Having concluded that Petitioner is subject to discretionary detention under 8
U.S.C. § 1226(a), not mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2), the Court next
considers the appropriate remedy. Again, Respondents do not address this argument
despite being directed to do so. (See Dkt. 5 at 1-2 ¶ 3(a), (d); Dkt. 8.) The Court agrees
with the numerous cases in this District that have held that an arrest warrant is a
prerequisite for detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). See Ahmed M. v. Bondi, No. 25-CV-
4711 (ECT/SGE), 2026 WL 25627, at *3 (D. Minn. Jan. 5, 2026) (collecting cases)
(noting that issuance of a warrant is a necessary condition to justify detention under
§ 1226(a)); Joaquin Q. L., v. Bondi, No. 26-CV-233 (LMP/DTS), 2026 WL 161333, at
*2-3 (D. Minn. Jan. 21, 2026) (same); Edwin C. R., 2026 WL 185068, at *2 (same); see
also 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) (“On a warrant issued by the Attorney General, an alien may be
arrested and detained pending a decision on whether the alien is to be removed from the
United States.” (emphasis added)); Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281, 288 (2018)
(“Section 1226(a) sets out the default rule: The Attorney General may issue a warrant for
CASE 0:26-cv-01221-MJD-ECW Doc. 10 Filed 02/13/26 Page 8 of 11

9
the arrest and detention of an alien ‘pending a decision on whether the alien is to be
removed from the United States.’”).
Respondents have not attempted to satisfy the warrant requirement of § 1226(a),
even after being ordered to do so by the Court. (Dkt. 5 at 1-2 ¶ 3(a), (d).) “Accordingly,
immediate release is the appropriate remedy.” Pedro L., v. Todd Lyons, et al., No. 26-
CV-00707 (MJD/ECW), 2026 WL 295386, at *4 (D. Minn. Feb. 1, 2026) R. & R.
adopted, 2026 WL 303268 (D. Minn. Feb. 4, 2026); see also Marlon S.T.L., P, v. Pamela
Bondi, et al., No. 26-665 (DWF/LIB), 2026 WL 251975, at *2 (D. Minn. Jan. 30, 2026)
(“A detainee being held pursuant to § 1226(a), as Petitioner is here, must have been
served an arrest warrant prior to detainment.”) (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a)); see also
Adriano L.V. v. Noem, No. 26-CV-269 (MJD/DJF), 2026 WL 184570, at *3 (D. Minn.
Jan. 18, 2026) (“The warrant requirement should not come as a surprise to Respondents,
since it is plainly in the text of Section 1226(a), and it has been the basis for several
orders for the immediate release of other, similarly situated, petitioners in this District.”),
R. & R. adopted, No. 26-269 (MJD/DJF), 2026 WL 194401 (D. Minn. Jan. 23, 2026));
Edwin C. R., 2026 WL 185068, at *2 (ordering immediate release where respondents
failed to identify a valid statutory basis for detention including by failing to satisfy the
warrant requirement of § 1226(a)); Alberto C.M. v. Noem, No. CV 26-380 (DWF/SGE), -
- F. Supp. 3d ----, 2026 WL 184530, at *2 (D. Minn. Jan. 23, 2026) (“The proper remedy
for this kind of violation is release from custody, not a bond hearing.”); Ahmed M., 2026
WL 25627, at *3 (collecting cases). Consequently, the Court recommends that the
Petition be granted insofar as Respondents be ordered to immediately release Petitioner
CASE 0:26-cv-01221-MJD-ECW Doc. 10 Filed 02/13/26 Page 9 of 11

10
and that the TRO Motion be denied as moot based on the relief recommended by this
Court as to the Petititon.
The Court sets an expedited deadline for objections to this Report and
Recommendation. See D. Minn. LR 72.2(a)(1) (“A party may file and serve objections to
the order within 14 days after being served with a copy, unless the court sets a different
deadline.”) (emphasis added). Any objections to this Report and Recommendation are
due on February 15, 2026. Responses to objections are due on February 17, 2026.
IV. 	RECOMMENDATION
Based on the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS RECOMMENDED
THAT:
1. 	Petitioner Mamadou B.’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (Dkt. 1) be
GRANTED insofar as:
a. 	Petitioner’s current detention be declared unlawful under the
Constitution and laws of the United States;
b. 	Respondents be ordered to immediately release Petitioner from custody
in Minnesota and, in any case no later than 11:00 a.m. Central Time on
the day following an Order adopting this Report and Recommendation;
c. 	Respondents be ordered to coordinate Petitioner’s release with
Petitioner’s counsel;
d. 	Respondents be ordered to release Petitioner with all personal
documents and belongings, such as his driver’s license, employment
authorization, passport, other immigration documents, cell phone, and
CASE 0:26-cv-01221-MJD-ECW Doc. 10 Filed 02/13/26 Page 10 of 11

11
coat and other outerwear, and without any conditions of release, such as
ankle monitors or tracking devices, where Respondents’ inability to
immediately comply with this requirement shall not be a basis for
delaying Petitioner’s release; and
e. 	The Government be required within 72 hours after issuance of an Order
adopting this Report and Recommendation to provide the Court with a
status update confirming Petitioner’s release and other compliance with
the Order.
2. 	Petitioner Mamadou B.’s Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining
Order and Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. 3) be DENIED as moot given that
the Court has recommended that Petitioner be released.
Dated: February 13, 2026 s/ Elizabeth Cowan Wright
Elizabeth Cowan Wright
United States Magistrate Judge
NOTICE
Filing Objections: This Report and Recommendation is not an order or judgment of the
District Court and is therefore not appealable directly to the Eighth Circuit Court of
Appeals.
Under Local Rule 72.2(b)(1), “a party may file and serve specific written objections to a
magistrate judge’s proposed finding and recommendations within 14 days after being
served a copy” of the Report and Recommendation. The Court modifies this deadline
such that objections are due on or before February 15, 2026. See D. Minn. LR
72.2(a)(1) (“A party may file and serve objections to the order within 14 days after being
served with a copy, unless the court sets a different deadline.”). Responses to objections
are due on or before February 17, 2026. All objections and responses must comply
with the word or line limits set forth in Local Rule 72.2(c).
CASE 0:26-cv-01221-MJD-ECW Doc. 10 Filed 02/13/26 Page 11 of 11