Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Jason L. Schellack, AUTISM ADVOCACY & LAW CENTER, LLC, 901 North
Third Street, Suite 120, Minneapolis, MN 55401, for Petitioner.
David W. Fuller, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, 300 South Fourth
Street, Suite 600, Minneapolis, MN 55415 for Respondents.
Petitioner Jhonny O.H.C. was arrested and detained by United States Immigration
and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) on August 22, 2025. Jhonny O.H.C. petitions for a writ
JHONNY O.H.C.,
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;
ERIC KLANG, Sheriff of Crow Wing County
Jail; and
DAVID EASTERWOOD, Acting Director, St.
Paul Field Office, U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement;
Respondents.
Civil No. 26-1387 (JRT/DJF)
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
GRANTING PETITION FOR WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS
CASE 0:26-cv-01387-JRT-DJF Doc. 11 Filed 03/03/26 Page 1 of 6

-2-
of habeas corpus, arguing that he is being detained unlawfully. 	Because the Court
concludes that Jhonny O.H.C’s detention is unlawful, the Court will grant his petition for
writ of habeas corpus and order that he be released from custody.
BACKGROUND
Jhonny O.H.C. is a citizen of Guatemala and a resident of Sioux Falls, South Dakota.
(Am. Verified Pet. Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Pet.”) ¶ 14, Feb. 26, 2026, Docket No. 6.) He
has lived in the United States since 2004. (Id.)
On August 22, 2025, Petitioner was arrested and detained by ICE, and an
administrative arrest warrant, Form I-200, was issued in connection with his arrest. (Decl.
of Angela Minner (“Minner Decl.”) ¶ 9 & Ex. B, Mar. 1, 2026, Docket No. 9.) 	Although
Petitioner has been detained at several detention facilities, he is currently detained at
Sherburne County jail in Elk River, Minnesota. (Id. ¶ 9.)
Since being detained, Petitioner has not sought a custody redetermination hearing.
(Id. ¶ 10.) 	On November 24, 2025, an immigration judge ordered Petitioner to be
removed. 	(Id.) 	On December 9, 2025, Petitioner appealed the immigration judge’s
decision ordering him to be removed. (Id.) Petitioner’s appeal remains pending. (Id.)
On February 12, 2026, Jhonny O.H.C. filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas
corpus, challenging the lawfulness of his detention. 	(Docket No. 1.) 	After securing
counsel, Petitioner filed an amended petition for writ of habeas corpus on February 26,
2026, “to address issues and arguments not included in his original petition.” (Pet. ¶ 2.)
In light of the amended petition, the Court issued an order (1) enjoining Respondents
CASE 0:26-cv-01387-JRT-DJF Doc. 11 Filed 03/03/26 Page 2 of 6

-3-
from transferring Petitioner outside the District of Minnesota pending a ruling on his
habeas petition or returning Petitioner to Minnesota if he had already been removed, and
(2) directing Respondents to file an answer by March 1, 2026. 	(Order, Feb. 26, 2026,
Docket No. 7.) Respondents timely filed their response.
DISCUSSION
Respondents argue that Jhonny O.H.C. is subject to mandatory detention under
8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). After thorough review of the parties’ filings, the Court concludes
that the legal issues presented by Jhonny O.H.C.’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) and Romero Santuario v. Bondi, Civ. No. 25-4296, 2025
WL 3469577 (D. Minn, Dec. 2, 2025). 	The factual record before the Court shows that
Jhonny O.H.C. was arrested while already in the United States. 	For the same reasons
articulated in Herrera Avila and Romero Santuario, the Court concludes that it possesses
jurisdiction over this petition, and that Jhonny O.H.C.’s detention is not authorized by
§ 1225(b)(2).1
1 For good reason, Respondents do not contend that Petitioner is subject to mandatory
detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1231. Under § 1231, a noncitizen must be detained once a removal
order becomes administratively final. 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1)(B)(i), (a)(2)(A). The November 24,
2025 Order is not administratively final because Petitioner’s appeal remains pending before the
Board of Immigration Appeals. See Alba D.H.R. v. Bondi, Civ. No. 26-1216, 2026 WL 412685, at
*2 (D. Minn. Feb. 13, 2026). 	Because Petitioner is not subject to an order of removal that is
administratively final, § 1231 would not justify Petitioner’s detention.
CASE 0:26-cv-01387-JRT-DJF Doc. 11 Filed 03/03/26 Page 3 of 6

-4-
Respondents have provided the Court with an administrative warrant dated
August 22, 2025 (see Minner Decl. ¶ 9, Ex. B.) and contend that if “the Court determines
that Section 1225(b) does not properly govern Petitioner’s detention . . . a bond hearing
under 1226(a) rather than immediate release is appropriate.” (Resp. at 2, Mar. 1, 2026,
Docket No. 8.)
The Court disagrees. The record indicates that the Form I-200 warrant was issued
after Petitioner had already been arrested and detained. The warrant is dated the same
day as Petitioner’s detention and appears to have been signed by the same individual who
executed it. (Minner Decl. ¶ 9, Ex. B; Pet. ¶ 17.) Moreover, the warrant states that the
arrest was based on “biometric confirmation of the subject’s identity” and “statements
made voluntarily by the subject to an immigration officer”—events that necessarily would
have occurred only after Petitioner was taken into custody. 	(Minner Decl. ¶ 9, Ex. B.)
Because the warrant appears to have been issued after Petitioner’s arrest, § 1226 does
not justify Petitioner’s detention. 	See Christian Z. v. Bondi, Civ. No. 26-157, 2026 WL
123116 (D. Minn. Jan. 16, 2026) (“Issuance of a warrant is a necessary condition to justify
discretionary detention under section 1226(a).” (citation omitted)).
It is clear to the Court from Respondents’ filings that they continue to assert legal
authority to detain Petitioner under 8 U.S.C. § 1225, not § 1226. And as explained above,
§ 1225 is not a lawful basis for mandatory detention in this case.
CASE 0:26-cv-01387-JRT-DJF Doc. 11 Filed 03/03/26 Page 4 of 6

-5-
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, as is required to effectuate an arrest
pursuant to § 1226(a), the appropriate remedy is release from custody. See, e.g., Ahmed
M. v. Bondi, Civ. No. 25-4711, 2026 WL 25627, at *3 (D. Minn. Jan. 5, 2026); Lauro M. v.
Bondi, Civ. 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.”).
Accordingly, the Court will grant Jhonny O.H.C.’s petition for writ of habeas corpus
and 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 Jhonny O.H.C.’s Amended Verified Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
(Docket No. [6]) is GRANTED, as follows:
a. 	Petitioner is not subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b).
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-01387-JRT-DJF Doc. 11 Filed 03/03/26 Page 5 of 6

-6-
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 potentially 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 inclement weather. 	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 	licenses, 	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. 	The 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 March 6, 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: March 3, 2026 	_____/s/ John R. Tunheim ____
at Minneapolis, Minnesota. 	JOHN R. TUNHEIM
United States District Judge
CASE 0:26-cv-01387-JRT-DJF Doc. 11 Filed 03/03/26 Page 6 of 6