Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Maria C. Y.,
Petitioner,
v.
Todd Lyons, in his capacity as Acting
Director, Immigration and Customs
Enforcement; Kristi Noem, Secretary,
U.S. Department of Homeland Security;
Pamela Bondi, U.S. Attorney General;
Daren K. Margolin, Director for
Executive Office for Immigration Review;
and David Easterwood, Field Office
Director of St. Paul Field Office for U.S.
Department of Homeland, United States
Immigration and Customs Enforcement,
Enforcement and Removal Operations,
Respondents.
Case No. 26-cv-00660 (MJD/ECW)
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Maria C. Y.’s Petition for a Writ of
Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, filed on January 26, 2026. (Dkt. 1.) According
to the Petition, Petitioner is a citizen of Ecuador who has resided in the United States
since August 14, 2023. (Id. at 5, 11.)1 She has been detained in Immigration and
Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) custody since January 25, 2026. (Id. at 11-12.) Petitioner
seeks a writ of habeas corpus requiring Respondents to immediately release her, or in the
1 	Page number citations in this Report and Recommendation are to the page number
assigned by CM/ECF.
CASE 0:26-cv-00660-MJD-ECW Doc. 7 Filed 01/31/26 Page 1 of 9

2
alternative, provide her with a hearing to allow Petitioner the opportunity to seek a bond
for release from custody pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226. (Id. at 3.)
On January 26, 2026, U.S. District Judge Michael J. Davis issued an Order
requiring Respondents to file their answer no later than January 29, 2026, certifying the
true cause and proper duration of Petitioner’s confinement and showing cause why the
writ should not be granted in this case. (Dkt. 3 at 1 ¶ 1.) The Order also required
Respondents answer to address “[w]hether the absence of a warrant preceding
Petitioner’s arrest necessitates Petitioner’s immediate release.” (Id. at 2 ¶ 2.) Judge
Davis also enjoined Respondents from “removing Petitioner from the District of
Minnesota” until a final decision has been made on the Petition and ordered Respondents
“to immediately return Petitioner to Minnesota” if she had already been removed from
Minnesota. (Id. at 2-3 ¶¶ 5-6.) On January 29, 2026, Respondents filed a Response.
(Dkt. 4.) Respondents filed no supporting declaration or other evidence in support of
their response. Petitioner filed her reply on January 30, 2026 (Dkt. 6), and the case is
now ripe for decision.
I. 	FACTS
Petitioner asserts, and Respondents do not dispute, that after entering the United
States without permission in August 2023, Petitioner turned herself in to immigration
officials and explained that she had fled Ecuador because a criminal group threatened to
kill her and her daughter. (Id. at 11.) Petitioner was detained for approximately two days
before being released on her own recognizance on August 15, 2023. (Id. at 11, Dkt. 1-1
at 9.) Since then, Petitioner has resided in Minnesota with her minor daughter. (Id. at
CASE 0:26-cv-00660-MJD-ECW Doc. 7 Filed 01/31/26 Page 2 of 9

3
11-12.) Petitioner has a pending asylum case and has not violated her conditions of
release. (Dkt. 6 at 3.)
Petitioner was taken into ICE custody on January 25, 2026, in Minnesota. (Dkt. 1
at 11-12.) Respondents have provided no additional facts about the circumstances or
reason for Petitioner’s detention. Respondents merely state that “this petition raises legal
and factual issues similar to those in prior habeas petitions this Court has decided” and
“assert all arguments raised by the government in [Avila v. Bondi, No. 25-3248 (8th Cir.
docketed Nov. 10, 2025)].” (Dkt. 4 at 1.) Respondents do not indicate whether a warrant
preceded Petitioner’s arrest and in fact state that “[t]he Federal Respondents also
acknowledge that many judges in this District conclude the absence of a warrant
preceding a petitioner’s arrest necessitates immediate release.” (Id.) The Court
understands this response to concede that Petitioner’s arrest was warrantless.
II. 	LEGAL STANDARD
A federal court may provide habeas relief to a person who is detained in violation
of the Constitution or laws of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). “The right to
challenge the legality of a person’s confinement through a petition for a writ of habeas
corpus extends to immigration-related detention.” Diego L., v. Bondi, et al., No. 26-CV-
382 (JMB/DJF), 2026 WL 145206, at *2 (D. Minn. Jan. 20, 2026) (citation modified).
Petitioner has the burden of proving her entitlement to relief by a preponderance of the
evidence. Jose J.O.E. v. Bondi, 797 F. Supp. 3d 957, 965 (D. Minn. 2025).
As U.S. Magistrate Judge John F. Docherty recently explained in a similar case:
CASE 0:26-cv-00660-MJD-ECW Doc. 7 Filed 01/31/26 Page 3 of 9

4
Two provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act are relevant to this
case. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2), which applies to “an alien seeking
admission” to the United States, detention while immigration proceedings
are conducted is mandatory, while under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), which applies
to an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, detention is
discretionary and may only be imposed after a hearing.
Mahamed C.A. v. Noem, No. 25-CV-4551 (MJD/JFD), 2025 WL 3771299, at *1-2 (D.
Minn. Dec. 16, 2025), R. & R. adopted sub nom., 2025 WL 3754012 (D. Minn. Dec. 29,
2025).
III. 	ANALYSIS
As stated above, Petitioner seeks immediate release, or in the alternative, a
declaratory judgment that she is subject to discretionary detention under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1226(a), not mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2), and thus entitled to a
custody redetermination hearing before an immigration judge under 8 C.F.R. § 1236 so
Petitioner can seek a bond for her release from custody. (Dkt. 1 at 2-3.)
The Response states only the following:
Petitioner filed this petition for a writ of habeas corpus to secure a bond
hearing in connection with Petitioner’s detention by the U.S. Immigration
and Customs Enforcement. The Federal Respondents acknowledge that this
petition raises legal and factual issues similar to those in prior habeas
petitions this Court has decided. See Dkt. 3, at 2. The Federal Respondents
also acknowledge that many judges in this District conclude the absence of
a warrant preceding a petitioner’s arrest necessitates immediate release. See
id. Those issues are currently before the Eighth Circuit on expedited review
in Avila v. Bondi, No. 25-3248 (8th Cir. docketed Nov. 10, 2025). For
purposes of expediting these proceedings, the Federal Respondents assert all
arguments raised by the government in Avila, preserve those arguments for
any appeal in this case, and respectfully request that the Court deny
Petitioner’s habeas petition.
(Dkt. 4 at 1.)
CASE 0:26-cv-00660-MJD-ECW Doc. 7 Filed 01/31/26 Page 4 of 9

5
In her Reply, Petitioner argues that Respondents have failed to establish a lawful
basis for Petitioner’s detention. (Dkt. 6 at 2.) Specifically, Petitioner argues that because
Petitioner was released pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226 (see Dkt. 1-1 at 9-10), absent
changed circumstances, which Respondents have not shown, Respondents do not have
the authority to re-detain her (Dkt. 6 at 2 (citing Khalid B.Q. v. Bondi, No. 25-4584
(JWB/DJF), Doc. No. 10 at 6 (D. Minn. Dec. 18, 2025)). Petitioner also states that an
Assistant United States Attorney told Petitioner’s counsel by email that Petitioner is in
Minnesota as of January 29, 2026, but Petitioner’s counsel has not been able to verify
that information with Petitioner. (Id. at 3.)
The crux of the issue here is whether Petitioner, who has lived in the United States
for over 2 years, should be treated as an “applicant[] for admission” under § 1225,
subjecting her to mandatory detention, or as “an alien” who was “arrested and detained
pending a decision on whether the alien is to be removed from the United States” under
§ 1226, and therefore entitled to a bond hearing before an immigration judge.
The Court agrees with the numerous thoughtful and persuasive decisions
addressing this issue in this District and nationwide which overwhelmingly support
granting the Petition. See Mahamed C.A., 2025 WL 3771299, at *2-3 (“The United
States concedes that Petitioner’s claim is similar to numerous other immigration cases in
this District in which citizens detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
seek bond hearings, in every one of which a district judge of this Court has ruled against
the government’s new interpretation. . . . Going beyond Minnesota to consider this
question on a national level, over 300 cases (and counting) have been decided adversely
CASE 0:26-cv-00660-MJD-ECW Doc. 7 Filed 01/31/26 Page 5 of 9

6
to the government.”). As another judge in this District recently explained: “Courts have
overwhelmingly rejected Respondents’ interpretation that section 1225(b)(2) requires the
mandatory detention of all noncitizens living in the country who are ‘inadmissible’
because they entered the United States without inspection.” Martin R. v. Noem, No. 26-
CV-168 (JMB/LIB), 2026 WL 115024, at *2 (D. Minn. Jan. 15, 2026). The Court sees
no reason to depart from this well-reasoned consensus, and adopts the statutory analysis
set forth in Martin R. and the myriad other cases rejecting Respondents’ position.
The Court has carefully reviewed, but is not persuaded by, the minority of
decisions in this district that have reached a different conclusion. See Bidye M. v.
Kandiyohi Cnty. Jail, No. 25-04791 (PAM-EMB), ECF No. 10 (D. Minn. Jan. 16, 2026);
Abdirahmaan G. v. Noem, No. 26-34 (PAM/SGE), ECF No. 7 (D. Minn. Jan. 14, 2026).
In contrast to those decisions, the Court reads 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) to apply only to
persons who are “presently seeking admission at the time of their detention.” See Beltran
v. Bondi, No. 25-04604 (MJD/DTS), 2025 WL 3719856, at *3 (D. Minn. Dec. 23, 2025)
(reasoning that to be seeking admission means to be “coming from outside” and
concluding that an individual who had resided in the country for years was not currently
seeking admission).
Having concluded that Petitioner is subject to discretionary detention under 8
U.S.C. § 1226(a), not mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2), the Court next
considers the appropriate remedy. The Court agrees with the numerous cases in this
district that have held that an arrest warrant is a prerequisite for detention under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1226(a). See Ahmed M. v. Bondi, No. 25-CV-4711 (ECT/SGE), 2026 WL 25627 (D.
CASE 0:26-cv-00660-MJD-ECW Doc. 7 Filed 01/31/26 Page 6 of 9

7
Minn. Jan. 5, 2026) (noting that issuance of a warrant is a necessary condition to justify
detention under § 1226(a)); Joaquin Q. L., v. Bondi, No. 26-CV-233 (LMP/DTS), 2026
WL 161333, at *2-3 (D. Minn. Jan. 21, 2026) (same); Edwin C. R., v. Bondi, No. 26-
00355 (MJD/JFD), 2026 WL 185068, at *2 (D. Minn. Jan. 25, 2026) (same); see also
8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) (“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.” (emphasis added.)) Here, Respondents have not produced a warrant for
Petitioner’s arrest, and have not provided any indication that one exists, despite being
ordered to produce “[s]uch affidavits and exhibits as are needed to establish the
lawfulness and correct duration of Petitioner’s detention” and to address “[w]hether the
absence of a warrant preceding Petitioner’s arrest necessitates Petitioner’s immediate
release.” (Dkt. 3 at 1-2, see also Adriano L.V. v. Noem, No. 26-CV-269 (MJD/DJF),
2026 WL 184570, at *3 (D. Minn. Jan. 18, 2026) (“The warrant requirement should not
come as a surprise to Respondents, since it is plainly in the text of Section 1226(a), and it
has been the basis for several orders for the immediate release of other, similarly situated,
petitioners in this District.”), R. & R. adopted, No. 26-269 (MJD/DJF), 2026 WL 194401
(D. Minn. Jan. 23, 2026)). Accordingly, immediate release is the appropriate remedy.
See Edwin C. R., 2026 WL 185068, at *2 (ordering immediate release where respondents
failed to identify a valid statutory basis for detention including by failing to satisfy the
warrant requirement of § 1226(a)); Alberto C.M. v. Noem, No. CV 26-380 (DWF/SGE),
2026 WL 184530, at *2 (D. Minn. Jan. 23, 2026) (“The proper remedy for this kind of
violation is release from custody, not a bond hearing.”); Adriano L.V., 2026 WL 184570,
CASE 0:26-cv-00660-MJD-ECW Doc. 7 Filed 01/31/26 Page 7 of 9

8
at *3 (recommending immediate release where there was “not even a hint that a warrant
was obtained” prior to detention). Consequently, the Court recommends that the Petition
be granted insofar as Respondents be ordered to immediately release Petitioner.
As an alternative basis for immediate release, the Court agrees with Petitioner that
Respondents have not provided any basis to justify re-detaining her in light of her August
15, 2023 Order of Release on Recognizance. (Dkt. 1-1 at 9-10). The Court agrees with
the courts in this district that have found re-detention in these circumstances to require
immediate release. See, e.g., Hussein JH v. Noem, No. 26-CV-202 (NEB/JFD) (D. Minn.
Jan. 17, 2026); Christopher A.F.E. v. Bondi, No. 26-CV-150 (JWB/ECW).
Given Respondents’ non-specific arguments in their Response, the Court sets an
expedited deadline for objections to this Report and Recommendation. See D. Minn. LR
72.2(a)(1) (“A party may file and serve objections to the order within 14 days after being
served with a copy, unless the court sets a different deadline.”) (emphasis added). Any
objections to this Report and Recommendation are due on February 2, 2026. Responses
to objections are due on February 4, 2026.
IV. 	RECOMMENDATION
Based on the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS RECOMMENDED
THAT:
1. 	The Petition be GRANTED insofar as Respondents be ordered to release
Petitioner in Minnesota no later than 11:00 a.m. Central Time on the day following an
Order adopting this Report and Recommendation, with all of her personal effects seized
during her arrest (including but not limited to immigration paperwork and other
CASE 0:26-cv-00660-MJD-ECW Doc. 7 Filed 01/31/26 Page 8 of 9

9
identification documents) and without any additional conditions beyond the conditions
contained in Petitioner’s August 15, 2023 Order of Release on Recognizance.
2. 	The Court further recommends that Respondents be ordered to notify the
Court and opposing counsel within 24 hours of Petitioner’s release, confirming that the
release has occurred.
Dated: January 31, 2026 s/Elizabeth Cowan Wright
Elizabeth Cowan Wright
United States Magistrate Judge
NOTICE
Filing Objections: This Report and Recommendation is not an order or judgment of the
District Court and is therefore not appealable directly to the Eighth Circuit Court of
Appeals.
Under Local Rule 72.2(b)(1), “a party may file and serve specific written objections to a
magistrate judge’s proposed finding and recommendations within 14 days after being
served a copy” of the Report and Recommendation. The Court modifies this deadline
such that objections are due on or before February 2, 2026. See D. Minn. LR
72.2(a)(1) (“A party may file and serve objections to the order within 14 days after being
served with a copy, unless the court sets a different deadline.”). Responses to objections
are due on or before February 4, 2026. All objections and responses must comply with
the word or line limits set forth in Local Rule 72.2(c).
CASE 0:26-cv-00660-MJD-ECW Doc. 7 Filed 01/31/26 Page 9 of 9