Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Walter A.,
Petitioner,
v.
David Easterwood, Director of St. Paul
Enforcement and Removal Operations,
Immigration and Customs Enforcement;
Kristi Noem, Secretary of the Department
of Homeland Security; Mike Stasko,
Administrator of the Freeborn County Jail;
Todd Lyons, Acting Director, U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement;
Pamela Bondi, Attorney General of the
United States; and Joseph Edlow,
Director, United States Citizenship and
Immigration Services, in their official
capacities,
Respondents.
No. 26-cv-1393 (SRN/LIB)
ORDER
Stacey Rogers, SSR Law Group LLC, 600 25th Ave. S., Ste. 201, St. Cloud, MN 56301;
Hannah Brown, 1907 E. Wayzata Blvd., Ste. 300, Wayzata, MN 55391, for Petitioner
David W. Fuller and David R. Hackworthy, U.S. Attorney’s Office, 300 S. 4th St.,
Minneapolis, MN 55415, for Respondents
SUSAN RICHARD NELSON, United States District Judge
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Walter A.’s Emergency Motion for a
Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction [Doc. No. 5]. Because counsel
for Respondents entered an appearance and responded to Petitioner’s motion, the Court
construes the motion as a Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (“the Motion”).
CASE 0:26-cv-01393-SRN-LIB Doc. 14 Filed 02/16/26 Page 1 of 10

2
For the reasons set forth below, the Motion for a Preliminary Injunction is granted
in part and denied without prejudice in part, and Petitioner’s Request for Reconsideration
of the Briefing Schedule [Doc. No. 10] is denied as moot.
I. 	BACKGROUND
A. Immigration Proceedings
Walter A., a Guatemalan national, entered the United States without inspection in
2020, when he was approximately 15 years old. (Pet. [Doc. No. 1] ¶ 22.)
In June 2024, upon Walter A.’s release from county jail on charges related to driving
under the influence, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) detained him
and initiated removal proceedings. (Id. ¶ 24; Robinson Decl. [Doc. No. 12] ¶ 8.)
Walter A. subsequently pursued multiple forms of administrative relief, including
Special Immigrant Juvenile Status (“SIJS”). 	(Pet. ¶ 25.) 	He states that on February 11,
2025, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) conferred SIJS on him with
deferred action. (Id.) Walter A. also alleges that he has pending applications with USCIS
for a T Visa, U Visa, and asylum. (Id. ¶ 25.)
He further contends that although an Immigration Judge initially terminated
removal proceedings based on his SIJS and deferred action, the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“BIA”) reversed due to a factual error. (Id.) Walter A. has contested his detention
and removal proceedings with USCIS and has litigated in Immigration Court and the BIA.
(See Robinson Decl. ¶¶ 10–44.) 	On October 14, 2025, an Immigration Judge issued an
oral order denying Walter A.’s application for asylum and withholding of removal, and
CASE 0:26-cv-01393-SRN-LIB Doc. 14 Filed 02/16/26 Page 2 of 10

3
ordered that he be removed to Guatemala. 	(Id.¶ 29.) 	The removal order became
administratively final on November 13, 2025. (Id.)
On December 1, 2025, an Immigration Judge denied Walter A.’s motion to reopen
and emergency motion to stay removal. 	(Id. ¶ 38.) 	On December 3, 2025, he filed an
appeal with the BIA, (id. ¶ 39), and on December 10, 2025, he filed an emergency motion
to stay removal with the BIA. (Id. ¶ 41.) It appears that both of those matters are pending.
Walter A. remains in ICE detention at the Freeborn County Jail in Albert Lea,
Minnesota. (Id. ¶ 47.)
B. Habeas Proceedings
On February 12, 2026, Walter A. filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [Doc.
No. 1] (the “Petition”), initiating this action. 	He alleges constitutional and statutory
violations based on his immigration detention, and seeks immediate release. (Pet. ¶¶ 132–
47.) 	After he filed his Petition, the Court issued an order that temporarily precludes
Respondents from removing Walter A. from the District of Minnesota pending resolution
of this matter. (Feb. 12, 2026 Text-Only Order [Doc. No. 4].)
Contemporaneously with the filing of his Petition, Walter A. also filed the instant
Emergency Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. In his motion, Walter A. seeks immediate
release in order to attend a February 17, 2026 biometrics appointment related to his U Visa
application. (Pet’r’s Mot. at 11.) If he is unable to attend the appointment, he requests that
the Court enjoin Respondents from taking any action that would result in the denial of his
pending U Visa application. 	(Id.) 	In addition, Walter A. requests that if he is released,
Respondents not re-detain him without a pre-deprivation hearing. 	(Id.) 	Finally, he asks
CASE 0:26-cv-01393-SRN-LIB Doc. 14 Filed 02/16/26 Page 3 of 10

4
that the Court order Respondents to file written confirmation of his release. (Id.) Walter
A. contends that release is warranted because he is likely to prevail on his claim that his
continued detention violates 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6) and Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678
(2001). 	(Id.) 	His initial 90-day post-removal order period of mandatory detention has
expired, and he argues that he is eligible for release because his removal is no longer
reasonably foreseeable due to “his approved SIJS petition” and “his grant of deferred action
through October 2028.” (Id. at 5.)
Respondents filed a consolidated response to the Motion for Preliminary Injunction
and Walter A.’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, focusing primarily on the authority to
detain a noncitizen up to six months following the issuance of a removal order. (Resp’ts’
Opp’n [Doc. No. 11] at 9–14.) 	Respondents contend that “[d]eferred action does not
prevent removal or require release.” (Id. at 14–15.)
As to the basis for Walter A.’s request for emergency injunctive relief, Respondents
dispute the necessity of Walter A.’s attendance at the biometrics appointment, but offer
that “[i]f the Court is inclined to grant any relief, then such temporary relief should be to
facilitate a biometrics appointment, not release from custody.” (Id. at 16.) In support of
their position, Respondents also submit the Declaration of Deportation Officer William J.
Robinson [Doc. No. 12].
In Walter A.’s Reply [Doc. No. 13], he argues that while he has shown there is no
significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future that would support
his continued detention, Respondents have failed to respond with evidence sufficient to
rebut that showing. (Reply at 8–18.) In addition, he asserts that Respondents have failed
CASE 0:26-cv-01393-SRN-LIB Doc. 14 Filed 02/16/26 Page 4 of 10

5
to undertake custody reviews, in violation of mandatory post-order custody review
regulations. 	(Id. at 18.) 	Finally, Walter A. argues that Respondents fail to address the
Catch-22 he is facing regarding his biometrics appointment related to the U Visa
application—“a circumstance created entirely by agency policy and interagency non-
cooperation.” (Id. at 20–25.)
In addition to the Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, Walter A. filed a Request for
Reconsideration of the Briefing Schedule [Doc. No. 10] related to the briefing on the
Motion for a Preliminary Injunction.
II. 	DISCUSSION
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 authorizes the Court to grant injunctive relief in
the form of a preliminary injunction. The purpose of a preliminary injunction is to maintain
the status quo. 	Tumey v. Mycroft AI, Inc., 27 F.4th 657, 664 (8th Cir. 2022). To determine
whether injunctive relief is proper, a district court considers four factors: (1) the movant’s
likelihood of success on the merits, (2) the threat of irreparable harm to the movant, (3) the
balance between the harm to the movant and the injury that granting an injunction will
inflict on other parties to the litigation, and (4) the public interest. Dataphase Sys., Inc. v.
C L Sys., Inc., 640 F.2d 109, 114 (8th Cir. 1981). “While ‘no single factor is determinative,’
the probability of success factor is the most significant.” Wilbur-Ellis Co., LLC v. Erikson,
103 F.4th 1352, 1356 (8th Cir. 2024) (citing Home Instead, Inc. v. Florance, 721 F.3d 494,
497 (8th Cir. 2013) (quoting Dataphase, 640 F.2d at 113)). The court must balance all the
factors in deciding whether the injunction should be granted. Ng v. Bd. of Regents of Univ.
of Minn., 64 F.4th 992, 997 (8th Cir. 2023). The burden rests with the movant to establish
CASE 0:26-cv-01393-SRN-LIB Doc. 14 Filed 02/16/26 Page 5 of 10

6
that injunctive relief should be granted. See Watkins Inc. v. Lewis, 346 F.3d 841, 844 (8th
Cir. 2003).
A. Biometrics Appointment on February 17, 2026
The Court confines its discussion here to Petitioner’s limited reason for requesting
emergency injunctive relief—his February 17, 2026 biometrics appointment. 	Petitioner
contends that missing the appointment may jeopardize his pending U Visa application. He
argues that USCIS and ICE have created an unlawful procedural trap, with USCIS
requiring his attendance at the upcoming biometrics appointment, but with ICE refusing to
arrange his transport while he is in ICE custody. (Pet’r’s Reply at 20–25.) In response to
the instant motion, however, and as an alternative to release, Respondents have offered “to
facilitate a biometrics appointment” if the Court is inclined to grant any relief. (Resp’ts’
Opp’n at 16.) 	The Court accepts Respondents’ invitation to facilitate Walter A.’s
attendance at his February 17, 2026 biometrics appointment. 	Facilitating the biometrics
appointment will maintain the status quo while the parties fully present their respective
positions on the merits of Walter A.’s Petition. Accordingly, Respondents shall transport
Walter A. to and from the biometrics appointment, return him to the Freeborn County Jail
after the appointment, and confirm their compliance with this Order within 48 hours of the
appointment.
B. Evidentiary Hearing on the Petition
The Court recognizes that the briefing schedule on Walter A.’s Motion for a
Preliminary Injunction was truncated given the close timing of his upcoming biometrics
appointment, 	but 	Walter 	A.’s 	underlying 	Petition 	presents 	complicated 	questions
CASE 0:26-cv-01393-SRN-LIB Doc. 14 Filed 02/16/26 Page 6 of 10

7
concerning jurisdiction and the effect of SIJS on the Zadvydas analysis—specifically,
whether Walter A.’s SIJS makes his removal not reasonably foreseeable and renders his
continued detention unlawful. The Court makes clear that with respect to the merits of the
Petition, it will not be reviewing the discretionary decision of Respondents, ICE, or USCIS
to ignore or abide by any immigration status it has conferred in executing a final order of
removal, as such review would be outside of this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction. See
Tostado v. Carlson, 481 F.3d 1012, 1014 (8th Cir. 2007) (exclusive jurisdiction to review
final orders of removal lies with the courts of appeal, not district courts). Rather, the Court
may only address the legality of Walter A.’s continued detention.
Because of disputed factual issues relevant to the Petition, the Court finds that an
evidentiary hearing will be necessary. 	Notably, Respondents have not confirmed Walter
A.’s SIJS, nor have they addressed the effect of such status, assuming he has it, on the
reasonable foreseeability of his removal. Walter A. disputes several facts that Respondents
present in their opposition memorandum, including the number of bond hearings that he
has been afforded and whether any custody reviews have occurred. 	(Pet’r’s Reply at 3.)
Moreover, ICE Deportation Officer Robinson attests that Walter A. is currently detained
pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), (Robinson Decl. ¶ 47), which is clearly incorrect. Because
Walter A. is subject to a final removal order and the initial 90-day removal period has
expired, his detention falls under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6).
At the evidentiary hearing, both sides shall be prepared to present evidence through
witnesses and exhibits. Exhibits should include admissible exhibits from the Immigration
Court record, including evidence of Walter A.’s SJIS. 	As for witnesses, to make the
CASE 0:26-cv-01393-SRN-LIB Doc. 14 Filed 02/16/26 Page 7 of 10

8
hearing most efficient, the testimony of a knowledgeable USCIS officer will be necessary.
USCIS possesses special expertise in areas such as SIJS, visa applications, and how to
interpret USCIS files—information that is outside the scope of Deportation Officer
Robinson’s expertise. 	Petitioner may consider obtaining a subpoena for such testimony
from an officer with USCIS. Following the evidentiary portion of the hearing, the Court
will entertain oral argument from counsel.
To reach the merits of the Petition, the Court also requires further briefing, as
contemplated by the February 13, 2026 Briefing Order [Doc. No. 7]. 	While the Court
appreciates that Respondents intended for their consolidated memorandum to serve as both
their memorandum in opposition to the Motion for a Preliminary Injunction and to the
Petition, and Walter A. replied in kind, Respondents did not address the legal effect of
SIJS, discussing instead the effect of deferred action in general. 	Nor did Respondents
address the legal authority on which Petitioner relies for the proposition that he may
challenge his detention prior to the six-month period of presumptive reasonableness if there
is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future. 	(See Pet. ¶¶
64–65) (citing several cases concerning petitioners with SIJS and deferred action).
For all of these reasons, the Court cannot address the underlying question of release
in the context of the Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. Accordingly, Respondents shall
file a supplemental memorandum and any supporting materials, consistent with the briefing
schedule set forth in the February 13, 2026 Briefing Order, to address these important
issues. Petitioner is free to respond with a reply, consistent with that briefing schedule.
CASE 0:26-cv-01393-SRN-LIB Doc. 14 Filed 02/16/26 Page 8 of 10

9
Given the complex questions at issue here, the Court hereby amends the Briefing
Order to include an evidentiary hearing and oral argument on Walter A.’s Petition, to be
held via video conference on March 10, 2026, at 9:00 a.m. 	The Court will provide the
parties with a Zoom invitation. 	The parties shall identify their witnesses and exchange
witness lists no later than March 3, 2026.
III. 	CONCLUSION
Based on the submissions and the entire file and proceedings herein, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED that
1. 	Petitioner’s 	Emergency 	Motion 	for 	a 	Temporary 	Restraining 	Order 	and
Preliminary Injunction, which the Court construes as a Motion for a Preliminary
Injunction [Doc. No. 5], is GRANTED in part, as to the requirement that
Respondents facilitate Walter A.’s attendance at his biometrics appointment for
which Respondents shall transport Walter A. to and from the appointment and
return him to his current place of detention at the Freeborn County Jail, and
confirm their compliance with this Order within 48 hours of the appointment,
and DENIED in part without prejudice, as to the other requested relief.
2. 	Petitioner’s Request for Reconsideration of the Briefing Schedule [Doc. No. 10]
is DENIED AS MOOT.
3. 	The Court AMENDS the Briefing Order [Doc. No. 7] and will conduct an
evidentiary hearing and entertain oral argument on Walter A.’s Petition on
March 10, 2026, at 9:00 a.m., via video conference. The Court will provide a
CASE 0:26-cv-01393-SRN-LIB Doc. 14 Filed 02/16/26 Page 9 of 10

10
Zoom invitation to the parties. 	The parties shall identify their witnesses and
exchange witness lists no later than March 3, 2026.
4. 	Respondents shall submit a response to the Petition that addresses the issues
noted herein, consistent with the deadline in the Briefing Order, and Petitioner
may file a response, consistent with the deadline in the Briefing Order.
Dated: February 16, 2026 	s/Susan Richard Nelson
SUSAN RICHARD NELSON
United States District Judge
CASE 0:26-cv-01393-SRN-LIB Doc. 14 Filed 02/16/26 Page 10 of 10