Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Pina C.D.B.,
Petitioner,
v.
Pamela Bondi, et al.,
Respondents.
No. 26-cv-1929 (KMM/DJF)
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Pina C.D.B.’s Verified Petition for a
Writ of Habeas Corpus. (Dkt. 1.) For the following reasons, the Petition is granted.
BACKGROUND
The Court recounts the facts as set forth in the Petition. Pina C.D.B. is a resident of
Brooklyn Park, Minnesota, and a citizen of El Salvador. (Id. ¶ 13.) She is married to a U.S.
citizen and has three children, one of whom has special needs. (Id. ¶ 15.) C.D.B. does not
have a final order of removal, and her immigration case has been administratively closed.
(Id. ¶ 14.) She also has an I-601A Waiver Application currently pending. (Id.)
Nonetheless, C.D.B. was arrested by federal immigration agents on March 13, 2026
in Shakopee, Minnesota. (Id. ¶ 16.) According to C.D.B., the agents did not “possess or
present a warrant of any kind for [her] arrest.” (Id.) As of the filing of her Petition, C.D.B.
was being held at the Kandiyohi County Jail in Willmar, Minnesota. (Id. ¶ 7.)
On March 18, 2026, U.S. Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster issued an Order to Show
Cause (“OSC”) requiring Respondents to answer the Petition by 5:00 PM on March 22,
CASE 0:26-cv-01929-KMM-DJF Doc. 8 Filed 03/24/26 Page 1 of 7

2
2026. (Dkt. 3 ¶ 1.) Relevant here, the OSC required Respondents to explain their “view as
to whether Petitioner’s arrest by immigration authorities was made pursuant to a judicial
or administrative warrant.” (Id. ¶ 2(d).) And, if Petitioner’s arrest was based upon an
administrative warrant, “Respondents shall provide the following information by affidavit
or declaration: (i) the date the warrant was issued; (ii) the time of day the warrant was
issued; (iii) whether the warrant was issued prior to Petitioner’s arrest; [and] (iv) the
identity and responsibilities of the individual who issued the warrant.” (Id.) They were also
ordered to “submit a reasoned memorandum of law addressing whether the warrant, its
issuance, and its execution comply with applicable statutory and regulatory requirements.”
(Id.)
Respondents filed a timely Response, arguing foremost that C.D.B. is subject to
mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). (Dkt. 5 at 4–6.) In the alternative,
Respondents assert that C.D.B. was detained subject to a warrant pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §
1226(a). (Id. at 6–7.) In their responsive memorandum, Respondents describe the facts
somewhat differently. They allege that C.D.B. was arrested on March 11, 2026 by state law
enforcement and state that Respondents issued a warrant for her arrest that same day. (Id.
at 1–2 (citing Dkt. 6-1).) ICE then took C.D.B. into federal custody on March 13 after
serving the warrant. (Id. at 2 (citing Dkt. 6-1).) However, Respondents include with their
Response a Form I-200 administrative warrant that asserts it was both issued and served
on March 14, 2026. (Dkt. 6.) Respondents do not provide any declaration from the relevant
officers explaining this discrepancy or describing the circumstances of the arrest. Nor did
CASE 0:26-cv-01929-KMM-DJF Doc. 8 Filed 03/24/26 Page 2 of 7

3
they provide any discussion of whether the warrant complies with the requirements of §
1226(a).
ANALYSIS
A court may issue a writ of habeas corpus if a person “is in custody in violation of
the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). And
district courts have authority to grant writs of habeas corpus “within their respective
jurisdictions.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a). That power “includes jurisdiction to hear habeas
challenges to immigration-related detention.” Jose J.O.E. v. Bondi, 797 F. Supp. 3d 957,
965 (D. Minn. 2025). “The burden is on the petitioner to prove illegal detention by a
preponderance of the evidence.” Id.
I. 	8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A)
This case is one of many filed in recent months in this district challenging the
unlawful detention of aliens who are already in the United States. In their Response to the
Petition, Respondents assert that Pina C.D.B. is subject to detention under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1225(b)(2)(A). (Dkt. 5 at 1.) This Court has previously held that, because aliens residing
within 	the 	United 	States 	are 	not 	“seeking 	admission” 	within 	the 	meaning 	of
§ 1225(b)(2)(A), that provision—which mandates detention—does not apply to them. See,
e.g., Belsai D.S. v. Bondi, No. 25-cv-03682 (KMM/EMB), 2025 WL 2802947 (D. Minn.
Oct. 1, 2025). The majority of courts to have considered these issues have reached the same
conclusion. Although the Fifth Circuit recently agreed with Respondents’ reading of
§ 1225(b)(2), the Seventh Circuit has reached a different conclusion. Compare Buenrostro-
Mendez v. Bondi, No. 25-20496, 2026 WL 323330, at *4–10 (5th Cir. Feb. 6, 2026), with
CASE 0:26-cv-01929-KMM-DJF Doc. 8 Filed 03/24/26 Page 3 of 7

4
Castañon-Nava v. DHS, 161 F.4th 1048, 1061 (7th Cir. 2025). Respondents’ position is that
the cases representing the majority view were wrongly decided and point out that the issue
is currently pending before the Eighth Circuit in Avila v. Bondi, No. 25-3248 (8th Cir.
docketed Nov. 10, 2025).
Although the Court has considered the arguments raised by Respondents, and
reviewed the authority cited in this and in other cases, the Court declines to repudiate its
analysis from Belsai D.S. and instead continues to follow the analysis of the majority of
courts to have considered the matter. Of course, these issues are complex, and Respondents’
arguments are not frivolous. But the Court continues to believe that the better reading of
the relevant statutory scheme is that § 1225(b)(2) does not apply to Pina C.D.B. or others
who are similarly situated, and her mandatory detention under that provision is not
supported by the law.
II. 	8 U.S.C. § 1226(a)
Respondents also contend that, in light of the administrative warrant, C.D.B.’s
detention is valid under § 1226(a), which states: “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.” 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). As courts in this District and
elsewhere have noted, an alien cannot be arrested and detained under this provision without
a valid warrant. See, e.g., Ahmed M. v. Bondi, No. 25-cv-4711 (ECT/SGE), 2026 WL
25627, at *3 (D. Minn. Jan. 5, 2026); Alberto C.M. v. Noem, No. 26-cv-380 (DWF/SGE),
2026 WL 184530, at *2 (D. Minn. Jan. 23, 2026) (finding that “ICE does not have authority
to detain a noncitizen under § 1226 who was arrested without a warrant”). So, if the
CASE 0:26-cv-01929-KMM-DJF Doc. 8 Filed 03/24/26 Page 4 of 7

5
government fails to show that a warrant was issued prior to the arrest, immediate release is
the proper remedy. See Francisco O. C. v. Bondi, No. 26-cv-01231 (KMM/JFD), Dkt. 13
at 4–5 (D. Minn. Feb. 18, 2026) (finding that the absence of information concerning a Form
I-200 warrant, including whether it was issued prior to the petitioners’ arrests, was
insufficient to support detention pursuant to § 1226(a) and ordering release); Jorge A.-G.
v. Bondi, No. 26-cv-1392 (ECT/DLM), 2026 WL 444682, at *2 (D. Minn. Feb. 17, 2026)
(same); Alberto C.M., 2026 WL 184530, at *2 (finding that release was the proper remedy
where there was “no indication” that the Form I-200 warrant, which was dated the same
day as the petitioner’s arrest, “was issued prior to, or after” the petitioner was arrested).
Respondents contend that C.D.B. was detained on March 13, 2026, pursuant to an
administrative warrant issued on March 11, 2026. (Dkt. 5 at 2; Dkt. 6-1 at 2 (“Record of
Deportable/Inadmissible Alien” form).) But these allegations are flatly contradicted by the
warrant Respondents have provided, which clearly states that it was both issued and served
on March 14, the day after C.D.B.’s apparent detention. (Dkt. 6.) And Respondents do not
provide a declaration from the relevant officers attesting to Respondents’ series of events.
Nor do they provide a separate warrant that matches the dates they list. Further, despite
being ordered to do so, Respondents fail to provide any legal analysis regarding whether
the warrant complies with the requirements of § 1226(a). The Court thus has no basis to
conclude that Respondents lawfully arrested C.D.B. pursuant to a valid warrant, or that her
arrest otherwise complied with the law. And without any proper legal justification,
immediate release is appropriate. Ahmed M., 2026 WL 25627, at *3 (holding that if
“detention . . . lacks a lawful predicate,” and Respondents fail to show “a valid statutory
CASE 0:26-cv-01929-KMM-DJF Doc. 8 Filed 03/24/26 Page 5 of 7

6
basis for detention in the first place, [then] the remedy is not to supply one through further
proceedings,” but immediate release) (quotation omitted); see also Jose D.S. v. Noem, No.
26-cv-1040 (JMG/EMB), 2026 WL 381889, at *1 n.1 (D. Minn. Feb. 11, 2026) (“[I]ssuing
an administrative warrant after an arrest isn’t good enough to trigger § 1226(a).”); Alberto
C.M., 2026 WL 184530, at *2 (finding that release was the proper remedy where a Form
I-200 warrant was not issued until after the petitioner’s arrest and initial detention).1
ORDER
Based on the above, and on the full record before the Court, IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED THAT:
1. 	Petitioner Pina C.D.B.’s Verified Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (Dkt. 1)
is GRANTED.
2. 	The Court DECLARES that Petitioner is not subject to mandatory detention
under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) and ENJOINS Respondents from denying release
or other relief on the basis that she is subject to such mandatory detention.
3. 	The Court ORDERS Respondents to immediately release Pina C.D.B. with no
new conditions and no later than 5:00 p.m. on March 25, 2026.
4. 	Upon Pina C.D.B.’s release, Respondents must return all of her personal effects
seized 	during 	her 	arrest, 	including 	but 	not 	limited 	to 	immigration
1 The Court observes that an immigration officer has the authority to make arrests
without a warrant when the officer “has reason to believe that the alien so arrested is in the
United States in violation of [immigration laws and regulations] and is likely to escape
before a warrant can be obtained for his arrest, but the alien arrested shall be taken without
unnecessary delay for examination before an officer of the Service having authority to
examine aliens as to their right to enter or remain in the United States[.]” 8 U.S.C. §
1357(a)(2). There is no evidence before the Court that C.D.B. was arrested based on this
authority to make warrantless arrests. In any case, there is nothing in the record to show
that immigration officers made a “determination . . . within 48 hours of the arrest . . . [about]
whether [C.D.B.] w[ould] be continued in custody or released on bond or recognizance[.]”
8 C.F.R. § 287.3(d).
CASE 0:26-cv-01929-KMM-DJF Doc. 8 Filed 03/24/26 Page 6 of 7

7
paperwork. Her property must be returned in the same condition as it was in at
the time she was arrested.
5. 	Finally, the Court ORDERS Respondents to file a notice of Petitioner’s release,
specifying the date, time, and location of her release no later than 12:00 p.m.
on March 26, 2026.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Date: March 24, 2026 	s/Katherine M. Menendez
Katherine M. Menendez
United States District Judge
CASE 0:26-cv-01929-KMM-DJF Doc. 8 Filed 03/24/26 Page 7 of 7