Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Rosa F.L.T.,
Petitioner,
v.
Pamela Bondi, et al,
Respondents.
No. 26-cv-807 (KMM/DTS)
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Rosa F.L.T.’s Petition for a Writ of
Habeas Corpus. (Dkt. 1.) For the reasons below, the Court grants the habeas petition.
Background
Rosa F.L.T. is a citizen of Ecuador. (Id. ¶ 7.) She has lived in the United States since
June 2022. (Id. ¶ 12.) Rosa F.L.T. is single mother of three children, one of which has been
afforded Special Immigrant Juvenile Status due to neglect, abandonment, or abuse by the
child’s biological father. (Id. ¶ 14.) She has a pending application for asylum; her
application was denied by an immigration judge but she timely appealed that decision. (Id.
¶ 13.) Accordingly, she has a non-final order of removal. (See Dkt. 5 at 1 n.1; Dkt. 6-1.)
On January 22, 2026, Rosa F.L.T. and her 19-year-old son were arrested by the
immigration authorities. (Id. ¶ 15.) The agents drove their vehicle in front of Rosa F.L.T.
and her son’s car, causing them to turn off the road and strike a tree. (Id.) The agents then
took Petitioner out of her car and, in the course of her arrest, caused her to suffer significant
injuries to her face and internal organs. (Id.) Rosa F.L.T. was taken to North Memorial
Hospital to receive treatment for lesions to her face and surgery for her appendix and gall
CASE 0:26-cv-00807-KMM-DTS Doc. 7 Filed 02/01/26 Page 1 of 4

2
bladder. (Id.) Following this treatment, Petitioner was released from the hospital seven days
later on January 29. (Id.) Petitioner is under five feet tall. (Id.) Both Rosa F.L.T. and her
son’s arrests were without a warrant. (Id.)
Respondents’ position is that Petitioner is subject to mandatory detention, seemingly
pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2), and they point to no other statutory or legal basis for her
detention. (See Dkt. 5.)
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
CASE 0:26-cv-00807-KMM-DTS Doc. 7 Filed 02/01/26 Page 2 of 4

3
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 most 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 Rosa F.L.T. 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
CASE 0:26-cv-00807-KMM-DTS Doc. 7 Filed 02/01/26 Page 3 of 4

4
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. 3 ¶ 2e), Respondents point
to neither a warrant supporting the applicability of § 1226(a) to Rosa F.L.T., 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 Rosa F.L.T.’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (Dkt. 1) is
GRANTED.
2. 	The Court DECLARES that Rosa F.L.T. 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 Rosa F.L.T. in
Minnesota, with all of her personal effects seized during her arrest, including
but not limited to immigration paperwork, and without conditions.
4. 	Further, the Court ORDERS Respondents file a notice on ECF by no later than
5:00 PM on Monday, February 2, 2026, certifying that Rosa F.L.T. has been
released. If Rosa F.L.T. has not been released by that time, then Respondents
shall advise the Court about the reasons her release has not occurred, and the
specific steps Respondents are undertaking to ensure her immediate release in
Minnesota.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Date: February 1, 2026 	s/Katherine M. Menendez
Katherine M. Menendez
United States District Judge
CASE 0:26-cv-00807-KMM-DTS Doc. 7 Filed 02/01/26 Page 4 of 4