Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
LOC T.,
Petitioner,
v.
PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General;
KRISTI NOEM, Secretary, U.S. Department
of Homeland Security; DEPARTMENT OF
HOMELAND SECURITY; TODD M.
LYONS, Acting Director of Immigration
and Customs Enforcement;
IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS
ENFORCEMENT; DAVID EASTERWOOD,
Acting Director, St. Paul Field Office,
Immigration and Customs Enforcement;
and RYAN SHEA, Sheriff of Freeborn
County,
Respondents.
Case No. 25‐CV‐4705 (PJS/DTS)
ORDER
David L. Wilson and Gabriela Sophia Anderson, WILSON LAW GROUP,
for petitioner.
Justin Merak Page, UNITED STATE’S ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, for all respondents
except Ryan Shea.
David John Walker, FREEBORN COUNTY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, for
respondent Ryan Shea.
This matter is before the Court on the federal respondents’ objection to the
February 12, 2026, Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of Magistrate Judge David T.
Schultz recommending petitioner Loc T.’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus be
CASE 0:25-cv-04705-PJS-DTS Doc. 13 Filed 03/03/26 Page 1 of 4

granted. 1 The Court has conducted a de novo review. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72(b). Based on that review, the Court overrules the objection and adopts the
R&R.
The Court agrees with Judge Schultz that United States Immigration and
Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) violated its own regulations—specifically, 8 C.F.R.
§ 241.13(i)(2)—when it detained Loc because the government has not established
changed circumstances that make Loc’s removal significantly likely to occur in the
foreseeable future. 2 The government’s sole proffered “changed circumstance” is that
“ICE Headquarters and Removal Operations is actively working with [the] Department
of State and the Department of Homeland Security on removal logistics for [Loc].”
Robinson Decl. ¶ 11, ECF No. 7; see also ECF No. 11 at 3. But such “paltry evidence of
changed circumstances” cannot satisfy the government’s burden under § 241.13(i)(2).
See Roble v. Bondi, 803 F. Supp. 3d 766, 773 (D. Minn. 2025). 3
1Pursuant to this District’s policy in immigration cases, the Court identifies
petitioner only by his first name and last initial.
2The Court agrees with Judge Laura Provinzino that “[a]lthough [petitioner] has
the ultimate burden of proving entitlement to habeas relief, the regulations at issue in
this case place the burden on ICE to first establish changed circumstances that make
removal significantly likely in the reasonably foreseeable future . . . .” Roble v. Bondi,
803 F. Supp. 3d 766, 772 (D. Minn. 2025) (citations omitted).
3Several judges in this District have found similar statements by the government
to be insufficient to establish changed circumstances for purposes of § 241.13(i)(2). See,
(continued...)
-2-
CASE 0:25-cv-04705-PJS-DTS Doc. 13 Filed 03/03/26 Page 2 of 4

In its objection, the government relies heavily on Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678
(2001). But Zadvydas is irrelevant. As Judge Myong J. Joun explained:
This case is not about ICE’s authority to detain in the first
place upon an issuance of a final order of removal as in
Zadvydas. This case is about ICE’s authority to re‐detain
[petitioner] after he was issued a final order of removal,
detained, and subsequently released on an [Order of
Supervision].
Nguyen v. Hyde, 788 F. Supp. 3d 144, 149 (D. Mass. 2025).
Because the Court has found that ICE violated its own regulation in re‐detaining
Loc, the Court need not decide whether ICE also violated the Constitution or a federal
statute (as alleged in Loc’s petition).
ORDER
Based on the foregoing, and on all of the files, records, and proceedings herein,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. 	Respondents’ objection [ECF No. 11] is OVERRULED.
2. 	The Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 10] is ADOPTED.
3(...continued)
e.g., Sarail A. v. Bondi, 803 F. Supp. 3d 775, 784–85 (D. Minn. 2025); Yee S. v. Bondi, 806
F. Supp. 3d 894, 901–02 (D. Minn. 2025); Faysal N. v. Noem, No. 26‐CV‐4641 (JMB/DLM),
2026 WL 36066, at *5 (D. Minn. Jan. 6, 2026); Garrison G. v. Bondi, No. 26‐CV‐0172
(JMB/DJF), 2026 WL 157677, at *3 (D. Minn. Jan. 17, 2026); Ban S. v. Bondi, No. 25‐CV‐
4750 (PJS/ECW), ECF No. 12 (D. Minn. Jan. 26, 2026); Claudio A.A. v. Bondi, No. 26‐CV‐
0742 (KMM/LIB), 2026 WL 468232, at *5–6 (D. Minn. Feb. 12, 2026), report and
recommendation adopted, 2026 WL 478347 (D. Minn. Feb. 18, 2026).
-3-
CASE 0:25-cv-04705-PJS-DTS Doc. 13 Filed 03/03/26 Page 3 of 4

3. 	Petitioner’s petition for habeas corpus [ECF No. 1] is GRANTED.
4. 	Respondents are ORDERED to release petitioner from custody within
48 hours of entry of this Order, subject to the conditions of his Order of
Supervision dated October 13, 2009. If petitioner is not in Minnesota,
respondents must first return petitioner to Minnesota.
5. 	The remainder of petitioner’s petition is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: March 3, 2026, at 8:20 am 	/s/ Patrick J. Schiltz
Patrick J. Schiltz, Chief Judge
United States District Court
-4-
CASE 0:25-cv-04705-PJS-DTS Doc. 13 Filed 03/03/26 Page 4 of 4