Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Paschal O. Nwokocha, PASCHAL NWOKOCHA LAW OFFICES, LLC, 105 Fifth
Avenue South, Suite 550, Minneapolis, MN 55401, for Petitioner.
Ana H. Voss, Trevor Brown, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, 300 South
Fourth Street, Suite 600, Minneapolis, MN 55415 for Respondents.
Petitioner Sekou K. was arrested and detained by United States Immigration and
Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) on December 3, 2025. 	Sekou K. petitions for a writ of
habeas corpus, arguing that he is being detained unlawfully. Because the Court concludes
SEKOU K.,
Petitioner,
v.
ANDREW 	LARSON, 	Executive 	Director,
Northwest Regional Corrections Center;
DAVID EASTERWOOD, Director of St. Paul
Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement;
KRISTI NOEM, Secretary, U.S. Department
of Homeland Security; and
PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General of the
United States;
Respondents.
Civil No. 26-706 (JRT/DLM)
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
GRANTING PETITION FOR WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS
CASE 0:26-cv-00706-JRT-DLM Doc. 9 Filed 01/31/26 Page 1 of 5

-2-
that Sekou K.’s detention is unlawful, the Court will grant his petition for writ of habeas
corpus and order that he be released from custody.
BACKGROUND
Sekou K. is a citizen of Liberia. (Verified Pet. Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Pet.”) ¶ 15,
Jan. 27, 2026, Docket No. 1.) He entered the United States without inspection in March
2024. (Id.) He has a pending asylum application and no criminal record. (Id.)
On March 12, 2024, ICE served Sekou K. with a Notice to Appear (Form I-862),
charging him as removable under § 212(a)(6)(A)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act
because he was “an alien present in the United States without being admitted or paroled,
or who arrived in the United States at any time or place other than designated by the
Attorney General.” (Id. ¶ 16, Ex. 2, Docket No. 1-2.)
On December 3, 2025, ICE arrested Sekou K. (Id. ¶ 15.) He was taken into custody
and detained at Northwest Regional Corrections Center in Crookston, Minnesota. 	(Id.
¶ 19.) On January 27, 2026, Sekou K. filed a Verified Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus,
alleging that his continued detention is unlawful and requesting that the Court order his
immediate release, or alternatively, a bond hearing. (Id. ¶¶ 40–50.)
The 	next 	day, 	the 	Court 	issued 	an 	order 	(1) 	enjoining 	Respondents 	from
transferring Sekou K. outside the District of Minnesota pending a ruling on his habeas
petition, and (2) directing Respondents to file an answer by January 30, 2026. (Docket
No. 5.) 	The Respondents answered the Petition (Docket No. 6), and Sekou K. replied
(Docket No. 7). Sekou K. states that he has now been transferred to a facility in Dakota
CASE 0:26-cv-00706-JRT-DLM Doc. 9 Filed 01/31/26 Page 2 of 5

-3-
City, Nebraska, in violation of the Court’s January 28, 2026 order enjoining Respondents
from transferring him outside the District of Minnesota. (Reply at 1, Jan. 30, 2026, Docket
No. 7.)
DISCUSSION
Respondents argue that Sekou K. is subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1225(b)(2). After thorough review of the parties’ filings, the Court concludes that the
legal issues presented by Sekou K.’s habeas petition are subject to the same analysis the
Court recently employed in Herrera Avila v. Bondi, No. 25-3741, 2025 WL 2976539 (D.
Minn. Oct. 21, 2025) and Romero Santuario v. Bondi, No. 25-4296, 2025 WL 3469577 (D.
Minn, Dec. 2, 2025). The factual record before the Court shows that Sekou K. was arrested
while already in the United States. For the same reasons articulated in Herrera Avila and
Romero Santuario, the Court concludes that it possesses jurisdiction over this petition,
and that Sekou K.’s detention is not authorized by § 1225(b)(2).
The Court therefore turns to the proper remedy. In previous cases involving this
issue, the Court has concluded that a bond hearing pursuant to § 1226(a) is the
appropriate remedy. 	However, the Court is now persuaded that where, as here,
(1) Respondents erroneously assert that a detainee is being held pursuant to § 1225(b)(2);
and (2) Respondents have not produced a warrant, as is required to effectuate an arrest
pursuant to § 1226(a), the appropriate remedy is release from custody. See, e.g., Ahmed
M. v. Bondi, No. 25-4711, 2026 WL 25627, at *3 (D. Minn. Jan. 5, 2026); Lauro M. v. Bondi,
No. 26-134, 2026 WL 115022, at *3 (D. Minn. Jan. 15, 2026); cf. Munaf v. Geren, 553 U.S.
CASE 0:26-cv-00706-JRT-DLM Doc. 9 Filed 01/31/26 Page 3 of 5

-4-
674, 693 (2008) (“Habeas is at its core a remedy for unlawful executive detention. . . . The
typical remedy for such detention is, of course, release.”).
The Court notes, and shares, Sekou K.’s concerns regarding his transfer out of the
state. 	It is unclear from the information available to the Court whether the transfer
occurred before, or after, the Court expressly directed Respondents not to transport
Sekou K. outside the District of Minnesota. 	But what is clear is that abrupt transfer
without notification to the Court obstructs a detainee’s ability to communicate with
counsel and with their family—and if Sekou K.’s transfer did take place after this Court’s
order, it would not be the first time Respondents have engaged in such conduct before
this Court.
The Court will grant Sekou K.’s petition for writ of habeas corpus and order that he
be returned to Minnesota and then released from custody.
ORDER
Based on the foregoing, and all the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. 	Petitioner Sekou K.’s Verified Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Docket No. [1])
is GRANTED, as follows:
a. 	Petitioner 	is 	not 	subject 	to 	mandatory 	detention 	under 	8 	U.S.C.
§ 1225(b)(2).
CASE 0:26-cv-00706-JRT-DLM Doc. 9 Filed 01/31/26 Page 4 of 5

-5-
b. 	Respondents shall TRANSPORT Petitioner to Minnesota and RELEASE
Petitioner from custody immediately. 	Petitioner’s release in Minnesota
must occur no later than 48 hours after the filing of this Order.
c. 	If Petitioner is being detained in Minnesota, Respondents shall RELEASE
Petitioner from custody as soon as practicable, and no later than 48 hours
from the filing of this Order.
d. 	Given the severe weather conditions in Minnesota, Respondents are
ORDERED to coordinate with Petitioner’s counsel to ensure that upon
Petitioner’s release, they are not left outside in dangerous cold. 	It is
preferable to release Petitioner to counsel to ensure humane treatment.
e. 	Respondents must release Petitioner with all personal effects, such as
driver’s 	licenses, 	passports, 	or 	immigration 	documents, 	and 	without
conditions such as location tracking devices.
f. 	The parties shall provide the Court with a status update concerning the
status of Petitioner’s release by no later than 5:00 p.m. on February 3,
2026. 	Further, the parties shall advise the Court whether any additional
proceedings in this matter are required and submit any proposals for the
scope of further litigation.
DATED: January 31, 2026
at Minneapolis, Minnesota. 	JOHN R. TUNHEIM
Time: 7:20 p.m. 	United States District Judge
CASE 0:26-cv-00706-JRT-DLM Doc. 9 Filed 01/31/26 Page 5 of 5