Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Elisamir C.A.,
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.
Civil No. 26-1315 (DWF/DTS)
MEMORANDUM
OPINION AND ORDER
INTRODUCTION
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Elisamir C.A.’s petition for a writ of
habeas corpus (the “Petition”). (Doc. No. 1.) Respondents filed a response asserting
authority to detain Petitioner under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). (Doc. No. 6.) For the reasons
set forth below, the Court grants the Petition and orders Respondents to release Petitioner
immediately.
BACKGROUND
Petitioner is a citizen of Colombia and a resident of Hopkins, Minnesota. (Doc.
No. 1 ¶¶ 1, 8, 13.) He has lived in the United States since November 2023. (Id. ¶ 13.)
He has no criminal record. (Id. ¶ 15.) He has four children between the ages of seven
CASE 0:26-cv-01315-DWF-DTS Doc. 8 Filed 02/12/26 Page 1 of 6

2
and twenty-five. (Id. ¶ 16.) Petitioner has a pending asylum application and is not
subject to a final order of removal. (Id. ¶¶ 1, 14.)
On February 10, 2026, Petitioner was arrested by U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (“ICE”) as he was leaving his home. (Id. ¶ 1, 17.) Fifteen ICE agents—
wearing masks and tactical vests and driving unmarked vehicles—intercepted Petitioner
in his driveway. (Id. ¶ 17.) They photographed Petitioner’s license plate, arrested him,
and left his vehicle abandoned. (Id.) The agents did not present Petitioner with an arrest
warrant. (Id.) Petitioner was first brought to the Whipple Federal Building in Minnesota.
(Id. ¶ 18.) He was then moved to an ICE detention facility in El Paso, Texas.1 (Doc.
No. 6 at 1.) Respondents are now working to return Petitioner to Minnesota. (Id.) At the
time of filing, Petitioner’s counsel attempted to locate him, but the ICE detainee locator
listed no results.2 (Doc. No. 1 ¶¶ 8, 18.)
Petitioner filed the Petition on February 10, 2026. (Id. at 18.) Petitioner asserts
that his detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) is unlawful because it violates the Due
Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, the Immigration and Nationality Act, and the
1 	Based on the record, it appears that Respondents violated the Court’s order
enjoining them from moving Petitioner out of Minnesota while this action is pending.
The Court will not order contempt proceedings at this time, so long as Petitioner is
promptly returned to Minnesota and released.
2 	Respondents do not challenge the Court’s jurisdiction to hear this Petition. (See
Doc. No. 6.) Nonetheless, the Court notes that it has jurisdiction because the location of
Petitioner at the time of filing was unknown. See Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 450
n.18 (2004) (creating an exception to the district-of-confinement rule for habeas
jurisdiction when the person’s location is unknown).
CASE 0:26-cv-01315-DWF-DTS Doc. 8 Filed 02/12/26 Page 2 of 6

3
Administrative Procedure Act. (Id. ¶¶ 37-53.) Petitioner requests, among other things,
release from detention or an order requiring Respondents to provide him with a bond
hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). (Id. at 17.) On February 10, 2026, the Court ordered
Respondents to answer the Petition on or before February 12, 2026, at 12:00 p.m. CT,
and enjoined Respondents from moving Petitioner from this District pending further
order. (Doc. No. 4.) Respondents filed a response. (Doc. No. 6.)
DISCUSSION
A district court may provide habeas relief to a person who is being detained in
violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). That
authority includes jurisdiction to hear habeas challenges to immigration-related detention.
Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 687 (2001); Deng Chol A. v. Barr, 455 F. Supp. 3d 896,
900-01 (D. Minn. 2020). The burden is on the petitioner to prove illegal detention by a
preponderance of the evidence. See Mohammed H. v. Trump, 786 F. Supp. 3d 1149,
1154 (D. Minn. 2025).
Respondents submitted a response, arguing that Petitioner is subject to mandatory
detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A). (Doc. No. 6.) Respondents summarize the
legal basis for their interpretation of the mandatory detention provision under § 1225 but,
in doing so, raise only arguments previously rejected by the Court. As this Court has
explained on multiple occasions, Respondents’ interpretation of § 1225 contradicts the
plain language of the statute. See Jose L.M.S. v. Bondi, No. 26-cv-474, 2026 WL
185066, at *2 (D. Minn. Jan. 25, 2026); Victor S.M. v. Noem, No. 26-cv-400, 2026 WL
161445, at *2 (D. Minn. Jan. 21, 2026). Section 1225 applies to “applicants for
CASE 0:26-cv-01315-DWF-DTS Doc. 8 Filed 02/12/26 Page 3 of 6

4
admission”—noncitizens who are either “present in the United States who ha[ve] not
been admitted or who arrive[] in the United States.” 8 U.S.C. § 1225(a)(1). Section 1226
applies where § 1225 is inapplicable and provides immigration judges with the discretion
to grant release on bond to noncitizens subject to removal proceedings. See id. § 1226(a).
Here, Petitioner is not an arriving noncitizen because he has been in the United
States for over two years and has a pending asylum application. See Jennings v.
Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281, 289 (2018) (noting that § 1226(a) applies to “certain aliens
already in the country”). Petitioner is therefore subject to the discretionary bond
provisions of § 1226(a), not the mandatory bond provisions of § 1225(b)(2).
Respondents argue that Petitioner’s pending asylum application warrants
categorization as an applicant for admission because he is seeking admission through
asylum. (Doc. No. 6 at 5-6.) The Court has already considered and rejected this
argument. Omar E.F.G. v. Bondi, No. 26-cv-451, 2026 WL 184571, at *2 (D. Minn.
Jan. 23, 2026). The fact that a petitioner is an applicant for asylum does not change the
Court’s § 1225 analysis.
Having found that Petitioner is being detained unlawfully, the question becomes
the correct remedy. A detainee being held pursuant to § 1226(a), as Petitioner is here,
must have been served an arrest warrant prior to detention. 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a); see also
Ahmed M. v. Bondi, No. 25-cv-4711, 2026 WL 25627, at *3 (D. Minn. Jan. 5, 2026)
(collecting cases). There is no evidence that Respondents had a warrant to arrest
Petitioner. And after being given the opportunity to explain the true cause of Petitioner’s
detention and provide documents of such (see Doc. No. 4), Respondents did not do so,
CASE 0:26-cv-01315-DWF-DTS Doc. 8 Filed 02/12/26 Page 4 of 6

5
(see Doc. No. 6). The Court therefore concludes that Petitioner was arrested without a
warrant. The remedy for a warrantless arrest is immediate release. 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.” (citation
omitted)).
ORDER
Based on the foregoing and the record in this case, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED
that:
1. 	Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. [1]) is
GRANTED.
2. 	The Court DECLARES that Petitioner’s current detention is unlawful
under the Constitution and laws of the United States.
3. 	Respondents are ORDERED to release Petitioner from custody
immediately.
4. 	Within three (3) days of the date of this Order, Respondents shall provide
the Court with a status update confirming Petitioner’s release.
5. 	Respondents are directed to release Petitioner:
a. 	In Minnesota;
b. 	With all personal documents and belongings, such as his driver’s
license, passport, other immigration documents, and cell phone;
CASE 0:26-cv-01315-DWF-DTS Doc. 8 Filed 02/12/26 Page 5 of 6

6
c. 	Without any conditions on release, including but not limited to
requiring Petitioner to sign an “Order of Release on Recognizance” or requiring
Petitioner to enroll and complete an “Alternatives to Detention” program;
d. 	Without any tracking devices or use of a tracking application; and
e. 	With all clothing and outerwear he was wearing at the time of
detention, or other proper winter attire.
6. 	Respondents shall provide reasonable advance notice to counsel to arrange
for a safe release of Petitioner.
7. 	Respondents are ENJOINED from re-detaining Petitioner under this same
statutory theory, absent materially changed circumstances.
8. 	Within thirty (30) days of final judgment in this action, Petitioner may
move to recover attorneys’ fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act,
28 U.S.C. § 2412.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: February 12, 2026 	s/Donovan W. Frank
DONOVAN W. FRANK
United States District Judge
CASE 0:26-cv-01315-DWF-DTS Doc. 8 Filed 02/12/26 Page 6 of 6