Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Jama A.O.,
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; Marcos Charles, Acting
Executive Associate Director for
Enforcement and Removal Operations;
David Easterwood, Acting Director, St. Paul
Field Office Immigration and Customs
Enforcement; Ted H. Kim, Associate
Director of USCIS Refugee, Asylum and
International Operations Directorate; Luis
Borjas, Field Office Director, U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services St.
Paul–Minneapolis Field Office; and U.S.
Department of Homeland Security,
Respondents.
Civil No. 26-420 (DWF/ECW)
MEMORANDUM
OPINION AND ORDER
INTRODUCTION
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Jama A.O.’s motion for a temporary
restraining order (“TRO”). (Doc. No. 3.) For the reasons set forth below, the Court
grants in part the motion.
BACKGROUND
Jama is a citizen of Somalia who entered the United States lawfully as a refugee
on October 25, 2010. (Doc. No. 1 ¶ 2.) Jama has a pending application to adjust his
CASE 0:26-cv-00420-DWF-ECW Doc. 6 Filed 01/18/26 Page 1 of 5

2
status to that of a lawful permanent resident. (Id.¶ 3.) That application was filed on
February 2, 2021. (Id.) On March 24, 2025, Jama filed an I-602 waiver for some minor
criminal history. (Id. ¶ 4.)
On January 18, 2026, immigration agents employed by the U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) agency arrested Jama. (Id. ¶ 5.) Before his arrest, Jama
received a phone call indicating that he had a package at the door, and when he answered
the door, he was slammed to the ground by ICE officers who asserted that he was
removable. (Id. ¶ 6.) During his arrest, ICE officers did not produce a warrant of arrest.
(Id. ¶ 7.) Jama alleges that Respondents have not charged Jama as deportable, have not
issued a Notice to Appear under 8 U.S.C. § 1229a, have not issued a Notice of Intent to
Terminate his refugee status, and have not otherwise taken any action consistent with
detaining Petitioner. (Id. ¶ 10.)
DISCUSSION
A motion for a temporary restraining order is analyzed under the same framework
as a motion for preliminary injunction. Tumey v. Mycroft AI, Inc., 27 F.4th 657, 665 (8th
Cir. 2022). The Court considers four factors in determining whether to grant a
preliminary injunction: (1) the threat of irreparable harm to the moving party; (2) the
balance between this harm and the injury that granting the injunction would inflict on the
nonmoving party; (3) the moving party’s likelihood of success on the merits; and (4) the
public interest. Dataphase Sys., Inc. v. C L Sys., Inc., 640 F.2d 109, 113 (8th Cir. 1981)
(en banc). The central question is whether justice requires preserving the status quo until
CASE 0:26-cv-00420-DWF-ECW Doc. 6 Filed 01/18/26 Page 2 of 5

3
the merits are determined. Id. The moving party bears the burden to establish these
factors. Watkins Inc. v. Lewis, 346 F.3d 841, 844 (8th Cir. 2003).
First, the irreparable harm is clear. If Petitioner is removed from this District, this
Court would lose jurisdiction and be unable to adjudicate his habeas petition. And even if
a court were able to adjudicate the matter, Petitioner may not be able to participate. As
for the request that Petitioner’s counsel be given 72-hours’ notice before Petitioner is
interviewed, Petitioner’s right to counsel may be infringed if his counsel is not present.
See 8 U.S.C. § 1362 (discussing right to counsel in immigration removal proceedings);
8 C.F.R. § 103.2(a)(3) (“An applicant or petitioner may be represented by an attorney in
the United States . . . .”). This factor weighs heavily in Petitioner’s favor.
Second, there is no indication that Respondents will be harmed. Respondents may
incur the costs of continued detention of Petitioner, but those costs would be incurred
regardless of the location. And the cost of providing notice to Petitioner’s counsel is
minimal. Further, any costs would be mitigated by the expedited briefing the habeas
petition requires. This harm is slight compared to the potential harm to Petitioner.
Third, the public interest favors preventing violations of constitutional rights,
preserving meaningful judicial review, and fair and consistent enforcement of
immigration laws. It would not be in the public’s interest to have Petitioner removed and
unable to adjudicate his case, or to have Petitioner face immigration proceedings without
the benefit of counsel.
Finally, Petitioner has demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits.
Respondents appear to have no authority to detain or remove him given his current
CASE 0:26-cv-00420-DWF-ECW Doc. 6 Filed 01/18/26 Page 3 of 5

4
refugee status. See 8 U.S.C. § 1159(a); cf. Andrei C. v. Lyons, No. 26-cv-166, 2026 WL
123083 (D. Minn. Jan. 16, 2026) (finding no lawful basis for the detention of a refugee).
The Court’s decision accords with judges in this District who have enjoined
Respondents from removing a habeas petitioner from Minnesota while their case was
pending. E.g., Francisco T. v. Bondi, No. 25-cv-3219, 2025 WL 2629800 (D. Minn.
Aug. 13, 2025) (Bryan, J.); Eliseo A.A. v. Olson, No. 25-cv-2281, Doc. No. 9 (D. Minn.
Aug. 29, 2025) (Blackwell, J.); Mohamed A. v. Bondi, No. 25-cv-4515, Doc. No. 10,
(D. Minn. Dec. 5, 2025) (Davis, J.); Domingo M.M. v. Shea, No. 25-cv-2830, 2025 WL
1937592 (D. Minn. July 15, 2025) (Provinzino, J.).
ORDER
Based on the foregoing and the record in this case, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED
that:
1. 	Petitioner Jama A.O.’s motion for temporary restraining order (Doc.
No. [3]) is GRANTED IN PART as follows:
a. 	Respondents, or any other person, entity, or agency of the
government, or anyone acting in concert with Respondents or the government, are
ENJOINED from removing, transferring, or otherwise facilitating the removal of
Petitioner from the District of Minnesota pending further court order.
b. 	If Petitioner has already been removed from Minnesota,
Respondents are ordered to immediately return Petitioner to Minnesota.
CASE 0:26-cv-00420-DWF-ECW Doc. 6 Filed 01/18/26 Page 4 of 5

5
c. 	Respondents are ORDERED to provide Petitioner’s counsel with
72-hours’ notice prior to interviewing or speaking with Petitioner regarding his
refugee status, or any other matter related to his immigration status.
c. 	This TRO expires on January 29, 2026, at 12:00 p.m. CT, unless
extended by the Court for good cause shown.
2. 	Petitioner Jama A.O.’s motion for temporary restraining order (Doc.
No. [3]) is DENIED IN PART insofar as it requests immediate release from detention.
3. 	Respondents are ordered to file an answer to the Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus (Doc. No. [1]) on or before January 21, 2026, at 12:00 p.m. CT, certifying the
true cause and proper duration of Petitioner’s confinement and showing cause as to why
the writ should not be granted in this case. The response should include a reasoned
memorandum of law and fact addressing each count of the Petition, as well as any
supporting documentation that may be needed to establish the lawfulness of Petitioner’s
arrest and/or continued confinement.
4. 	If Petitioner intends to file a reply to Respondents’ answer, he must do so
by no later than January 22, 2026, at 12:00 p.m. CT.
Dated: January 18, 2026 	s/Donovan W. Frank
DONOVAN W. FRANK
United States District Judge
CASE 0:26-cv-00420-DWF-ECW Doc. 6 Filed 01/18/26 Page 5 of 5