Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Roseline K. N.,
Petitioner,
v.
Pam Bondi, et al.,
Respondents.
No. 26-cv-540 (KMM/SGE)
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Roseline K. N.’s Petition for a Writ of
Habeas Corpus. [Dkt. 1.] For the reasons below, the Court grants the habeas petition.
Background
Roseline K. N. is a citizen of Kenya. [Id. ¶¶ 7, 12.] She has lived in the United States
since 2005. [Id. ¶ 12.] Petitioner has no criminal history, except for “one traffic related
violation,” and is not subject to a final removal order. [Id. ¶¶ 13–14.] On January 16, 2026,
Roseline K. N. was arrested by immigration officers outside a CVS where she had gone to
pick up her seizure medication. [Id. ¶ 17.] There is no evidence that she was the subject of
a judicial or administrative warrant, and she has not been afforded a bond hearing. [Id. ¶¶
17, 35.] Respondents’ position is that Roseline K. N. is subject to mandatory detention
pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2), and they point to no other statutory or legal basis for her
detention. [Dkt. 7 at 1–2.]
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
CASE 0:26-cv-00540-KMM-SGE Doc. 9 Filed 01/25/26 Page 1 of 4

2
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.
This case is one of many filed in recent months in this district challenging the
application of § 1225(b)(2) to aliens who are already in the United States, either having
entered without inspection or having been previously released pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226.
This Court has previously held that, because such people are not “seeking admission,” as
set forth in § 1225(b)(2), 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 same legal conclusion has been adopted by countless district
courts around the country in similar cases, by the only Court of Appeals to have addressed
the issue, and by many courts in this district. Respondents’ position is that Belsai D.S. and
the many other cases reaching the same conclusion were wrongly decided. Respondents
also point out that the underlying legal issue is pending before the Eighth Circuit and that
they wish to preserve their position for appeal.
Although the Court has considered the arguments raised by the government, 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
CASE 0:26-cv-00540-KMM-SGE Doc. 9 Filed 01/25/26 Page 2 of 4

3
the relevant statutory scheme is that § 1225(b)(2) does not apply to Roseline K. N. or others
who are similarly situated, and her mandatory detention under that provision is not
supported by the law.
The Court further concludes that immediate release is the appropriate remedy. The
government has not claimed to have a “warrant issued by the Attorney General” supporting
Petitioner’s recent arrest, nor has the government produced one to the Court. As U.S.
District Judge Eric Tostrud recently explained, “[s]ection 1226 provides that ‘[o]n a
warrant issued by the Attorney General, an alien may be arrested and detained.’” Ahmed
M. v. Bondi et al., 25-CV-4711 (ECT/SGE), 2026 WL 25627, at *3 (D. Minn. Jan. 5, 2026).
Judge Tostrud concluded that the issuance of a warrant is a necessary prerequisite to even
discretionary detention under § 1226(a), citing several decisions from other districts. Id. In
Ahmed M., the petitioner had been rearrested with no warrant and no allegation of a
violation of the conditions of her previous release. Therefore, the appropriate remedy in
Ahmed M. was immediate release rather than a detention hearing. See also Juan S.R. v.
Bondi, 26-cv-05 (PJS/LIB) (Order (Dkt. 8) Jan. 12, 2026) (same).
The Court agrees with the reasoning of these cases. Despite the Court seeking a
specific response on this issue in the Order to Show Cause [Dkt. 4 ¶ 2e], Respondents point
to neither a warrant supporting the applicability of § 1226(a) to Roseline K. N., nor any
other statutory basis for a bond hearing, so immediate release is required.
ORDER
Based on the above, and on the full record before the Court, IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED THAT:
CASE 0:26-cv-00540-KMM-SGE Doc. 9 Filed 01/25/26 Page 3 of 4

4
1. 	Petitioner Roseline K. N.’s 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 Roseline K. N. The
Court has been informed that Petitioner was transferred out of the District of
Minnesota but is being returned to the District, in compliance with the Court’s
Order to Show Cause [Dkt. 7]. Therefore, the Court assumes that Roseline K. N.
will be promptly released in Minnesota.
4. 	Finally, the Court ORDERS Respondents to notify the Court and opposing
counsel within 24 hours of Petitioner’s release, confirming that the release has
occurred. If Roseline K. N. has not been returned as previously ordered,
Respondents should immediately notify the Court of when she will be returned
and released.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Date: January 25, 2026 	s/Katherine M. Menendez
Katherine M. Menendez
United States District Judge
CASE 0:26-cv-00540-KMM-SGE Doc. 9 Filed 01/25/26 Page 4 of 4