Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Dwine L.,
Petitioner,
v.
Pam Bondi, et al.,
Respondents.
No. 26-cv-627 (KMM/DLM)
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Dwine L.’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas
Corpus. [Dkt. 1.] For the reasons below, the Court grants the habeas petition.
Background
Dwine L. is a citizen of Cameroon. [Id. ¶ 13.] He has lived in the United States since
2022. [Id.] Dwine L. has a pending asylum application and does not have a final order of
removal. [Id. ¶ 14.] He also has a work permit and is currently employed. [Id. ¶ 15.]
Petitioner is also involved in the community, “volunteer[ing] much of his time with a local
Cameroonian-American 	nonprofit, 	providing 	musical 	instrument 	lessons, 	cultural
education, and assisting those in need.” [Id.] On the morning of December 29, 2025, Dwine
L. visited a local store to pick up items before heading home to rest due to cold-like
symptoms. [Id. ¶ 16.] Upon returning to his vehicle, Petitioner was arrested by the
immigration authorities, during which the agents did not present a warrant for his arrest.
[Id.] There is no evidence that Dwine L. was the subject of a judicial or administrative
warrant, and he has not been afforded a bond hearing. [Id. ¶ 29.] Respondents’ position is
CASE 0:26-cv-00627-KMM-DLM Doc. 6 Filed 01/28/26 Page 1 of 4

2
that Dwine L. 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 his detention. [Dkt. 4 at 1–3.]
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.
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.
CASE 0:26-cv-00627-KMM-DLM Doc. 6 Filed 01/28/26 Page 2 of 4

3
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
the relevant statutory scheme is that § 1225(b)(2) does not apply to Dwine L. or others who
are similarly situated, and his 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 his 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
CASE 0:26-cv-00627-KMM-DLM Doc. 6 Filed 01/28/26 Page 3 of 4

4
to neither a warrant supporting the applicability of § 1226(a) to Dwine L., 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:
1. 	Petitioner Dwine L.’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 he is subject to such mandatory detention.
3. 	The Court ORDERS Respondents to immediately release Dwine L. with all of
his personal effects seized during his arrest, including but not limited to
immigration paperwork, and without conditions. The Court is aware that
Dwine L. is currently being held in the District, so his release in Minnesota is
assumed. This release must occur within 24 hours of this Order.
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 Dwine L. has not been released as previously ordered, Respondents
should immediately notify the Court of when he will be released.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Date: January 28, 2026 	s/Katherine M. Menendez
Katherine M. Menendez
United States District Judge
CASE 0:26-cv-00627-KMM-DLM Doc. 6 Filed 01/28/26 Page 4 of 4