Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
FEDRIK D.W.,
Petitioner,
v.
PAMELA BONDI, United States Attorney
General;
KRISTI NOEM, Secretary, U.S. Department
of Homeland Security;
TODD 	M. 	LYONS, 	Acting 	Director,
Immigration and Customs Enforcement;
and
DAVID EASTERWOOD, Acting Director, St.
Paul Field Office, U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement,
Respondents.
Civil No. 26-1294 (JRT/JFD)
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
GRANTING PETITION FOR WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS
Ashlynn Kendzior and Evan Joel Mulholland, MINNESOTA CENTER FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL ADVOCACY, 1919 University Avenue West, Suite 515, St.
Paul, MN 55104, for Petitioner.
David W. Fuller, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, 300 South Fourth
Street, Suite 600, Minneapolis, MN 55415; and Troy Robert Morley
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, 225 South Pierre Street, P.O. Box 7240, Suite
337, Pierre, SD 57501, for Respondents.
Petitioner 	Fedrik 	D.W. 	was 	detained 	by 	U.S. 	Immigration 	and 	Customs
Enforcement (“ICE”) officials early in the morning on February 10, 2026, while leaving his
CASE 0:26-cv-01294-JRT-JFD Doc. 10 Filed 02/14/26 Page 1 of 5

- 2 -
residence to go to work. (Am. Verified Pet. for Writ of Habeas Corpus ¶ 15, Feb. 10, 2026,
Docket No. 2.) The same day, Petitioner filed a petition and an amended petition for writ
of habeas corpus, challenging the lawfulness of his detention. 	(See Docket Nos. 1–2.)
Because the Court concludes that Petitioner is being detained unlawfully, the Court will
grant the petition and order Petitioner’s immediate release.
DISCUSSION
Petitioner Fedrik D.W. is a citizen of Nicaragua and a resident of Maplewood,
Minnesota. (Am. Pet. ¶ 7.) He has lived in the United States since September 2022, has
a pending asylum application, and is not subject to a final order for removal. (Id. ¶¶ 12–
13.) Petitioner is currently detained in Minnesota. (Id. ¶ 7.)
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); Romero Santuario v. Bondi, Civ. 25-4296, 2025
WL 3469577 (D. Minn, Dec. 2, 2025) and Iishaar-Abdi v. Klang, Civ. No. 25-4686, 2025 WL
3764853, at *1 n.2 (D. Minn. Dec. 30, 2025). Section 1225(b)(2) does not authorize the
mandatory detention of an individual already present in the United States.
Respondents have provided the Court with an administrative warrant dated
February 10, 2026, and contend that “if the Court determines Petitioner is detained under
CASE 0:26-cv-01294-JRT-JFD Doc. 10 Filed 02/14/26 Page 2 of 5

- 3 -
§ 1226(a) and not under § 1225(b)(2), then the appropriate remedy is to order a custody
redetermination hearing instead of immediate release.” 	(Resp. at 1–2, Feb. 12, 2026,
Docket No. 6.)
However, much about the warrant remains unclear. Respondents do not provide
an accompanying declaration explaining the legal basis for the warrant, attesting to its
validity, identifying the officers who issued and obtained it, or confirming that those
officers had received the necessary training to issue and serve warrants. 	Cf. 	8 C.F.R.
§ 287.5. 	It appears likely that the I-200 warrant was issued either in the field or after
Petitioner was arrested and detained; it is dated the same day as the Petitioner’s
detention, which occurred at around 6:00 am. 	(Resp., Ex. 1; Pet. ¶ 15.) 	The Court is
persuaded by the reasoning Castanon Nava v. Department of Homeland Security, that ICE
lacks statutory and regulatory authority to engage in a policy of issuing I-200 warrants to
collaterals in the field without the concurrent or prior issuance of a notice to appear
(NTA). 	Civ. No. 18-3757, 2025 WL 2842146, at *17 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 7, 2025). 	For several
reasons, including that Respondents have not provided a corresponding NTA, the Court
concludes that this warrant does not alter the Court’s analysis here.
It is clear to the Court from Respondents’ filings that they continue to assert legal
authority to detain Petitioner under § 1225, not § 1226. And as explained above, § 1225
is not a lawful basis for mandatory detention in this case.
CASE 0:26-cv-01294-JRT-JFD Doc. 10 Filed 02/14/26 Page 3 of 5

- 4 -
The Court therefore turns to the proper remedy. Where, as here, (1) Respondents
erroneously 	assert 	that 	a 	detainee 	is 	being 	held 	pursuant 	to 	§ 	1225(b) 	and
(2) Respondents have not produced a valid warrant to effectuate an arrest pursuant to
§ 1226(a), the appropriate remedy is release from custody. See, e.g., Ahmed M. v. Bondi,
No. 25-4711, 2026 WL 25627, at *3 (D. Minn. Jan. 5, 2026); Lauro M. v. Bondi, 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 Fedrik D.W.’s petition for writ of habeas corpus and will order
that he be released from custody.
ORDER
Based on the foregoing, and all the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. 	Petitioner Fedrik D.W.’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)(2).
b. 	If Petitioner is being detained outside 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.
CASE 0:26-cv-01294-JRT-JFD Doc. 10 Filed 02/14/26 Page 4 of 5

- 5 -
c. 	If Petitioner is being detained in Minnesota, Respondents shall RELEASE
Petitioner from custody as soon as practicable, and 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 	license, 	passports, 	or 	immigration 	documents, 	and 	without
conditions such as location tracking devices.
f. 	Respondents are ENJOINED from re-detaining Petitioner under this same
statutory theory, absent materially changed circumstances.
g. 	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 17,
2026. 	Further, the parties shall advise the Court whether any additional
proceedings in this matter are required and submit any proposals for the
scope of further litigation.
DATED: February 14, 2026
at Minneapolis, Minnesota. 	JOHN R. TUNHEIM
Time: 4:15 p.m. 	United States District Judge
CASE 0:26-cv-01294-JRT-JFD Doc. 10 Filed 02/14/26 Page 5 of 5