Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Francisco R.C.,
Petitioner,
v.
Pamela Bondi, Attorney General; Kristi
Noem, Secretary, U.S. Department of
Homeland Security; Department of
Homeland Security; Todd M. Lyons,
Acting Director of Immigration and
Customs Enforcement; Immigration and
Customs Enforcement; Daren K.
Margolin, Director for Executive Office
for Immigration Review; Executive Office
for Immigration Review; and David
Easterwood, Director, Fort Snelling Field
Office Immigration and Customs
Enforcement,
Respondents.
Civil No. 26-833 (DWF/JFD)
MEMORANDUM
OPINION AND ORDER
INTRODUCTION
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Francisco R.C.’s petition for a writ of
habeas corpus (the “Petition”). (Doc. No. 1.) Respondents filed a response asserting
authority to detain Petitioner under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A). (Doc. No. 5.) For the
reasons set forth below, the Court grants the Petition and orders Respondents to release
Petitioner immediately.
CASE 0:26-cv-00833-DWF-JFD Doc. 6 Filed 02/02/26 Page 1 of 5

2
BACKGROUND
Petitioner is a citizen of Ecuador and a resident of Minneapolis, Minnesota. (Doc.
No. 1 ¶ 14.) He entered the United States without inspection at least nine years ago. (Id.
¶ 32.) Petitioner was placed in removal proceedings in 2020, which were
administratively closed in April 2024. (Id. ¶ 33.) On January 29, 2026, Petitioner was
arrested by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”). (Id. ¶ 34.) He is
currently being detained at the Whipple Federal Building in Minnesota. (Id. ¶ 14.)
Petitioner filed the Petition on January 29, 2026. (Id. at 31.) Petitioner asserts that
his detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) is unlawful because it violates the Immigration
and Nationality Act, the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, and the
Administrative Procedure Act. (See id. ¶¶ 73-96.) Petitioner requests, among other
things, release from detention or an order requiring Respondents to provide him with a
bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226. (Id. at ¶¶ 66-72.) On January 29, 2026, the Court
ordered Respondents to answer the Petition on or before February 1, 2026, at 12:00 p.m.
CT, and enjoined Respondents from moving Petitioner from this District pending further
order. (Doc. No. 3.) Respondents timely filed a response. (Doc. No. 5.)
DISCUSSION
A district court may provide habeas relief to a person who is being detained in
violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). That
authority includes jurisdiction to hear habeas challenges to immigration-related detention.
Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 687 (2001); Deng Chol A. v. Barr, 455 F. Supp. 3d 896,
900-01 (D. Minn. 2020). The burden is on the petitioner to prove illegal detention by a
CASE 0:26-cv-00833-DWF-JFD Doc. 6 Filed 02/02/26 Page 2 of 5

3
preponderance of the evidence. See Mohammed H. v. Trump, 786 F. Supp. 3d 1149,
1154 (D. Minn. 2025).
Respondents submitted a response, arguing that Petitioner is subject to mandatory
detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A). (Doc. No. 5.) Respondents summarize the
legal basis for their interpretation of the mandatory detention provision under § 1225 but,
in doing so, do not raise any arguments not already rejected by the Court. As this Court
has explained on multiple occasions, Respondents’ interpretation of § 1225 contradicts
the plain language of the statute. See Jose L.M.S. v. Bondi, No. 26-cv-474, 2026 WL
185066, at *2 (D. Minn. Jan. 25, 2026); Omar E.F.G. v. Bondi, No. 26-cv-451, 2026 WL
184571, at *2 (D. Minn. Jan. 23, 2026); Victor S.M. v. Noem, No. 26-cv-400, 2026 WL
161445, at *2 (D. Minn. Jan. 21, 2026). Section 1225 applies to “applicants for
admission”—noncitizens who are either “present in the United States who ha[ve] not
been admitted or who arrive[] in the United States.” 8 U.S.C. § 1225(a)(1). Section 1226
applies where § 1225 is inapplicable and provides immigration judges with the discretion
to grant release on bond to noncitizens subject to removal proceedings. See id. § 1226(a).
Here, Petitioner is not an arriving noncitizen because he has been in the United
States for at least nine years. See Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281, 289 (2018)
(noting that § 1226(a) applies to “certain aliens already in the country”). Petitioner is
therefore subject to the discretionary bond provisions of § 1226(a), not the mandatory
bond provisions of § 1225(b)(2).
Having found that Petitioner is being detained unlawfully, the question becomes
the correct remedy. A detainee being held pursuant to § 1226(a) must have been served
CASE 0:26-cv-00833-DWF-JFD Doc. 6 Filed 02/02/26 Page 3 of 5

4
an arrest warrant prior to detainment. 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a); see also Ahmed M. v. Bondi,
No. 25-cv-4711, 2026 WL 25627, at *3 (D. Minn. Jan. 5, 2026) (collecting cases). There
is no evidence that Respondents had a warrant to arrest Petitioner. And after being given
the opportunity to explain the true cause of Petitioner’s detainment and provide
documents of such (see Doc. No. 3), Respondents did not do so, (see Doc. No. 5). The
Court therefore concludes that Petitioner was arrested without a warrant. The remedy for
a warrantless arrest is immediate release. Munaf v. Geren, 553 U.S. 674, 693 (2008)
(“Habeas is at its core a remedy for unlawful executive detention. The typical remedy for
such detention is, of course, release.” (citation omitted)).
ORDER
Based on the foregoing and the record in this case, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED
that:
1. 	Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. [1]) is
GRANTED.
2. 	The Court DECLARES that Petitioner’s current detention is unlawful
under the Constitution and laws of the United States.
3. 	Respondents are ORDERED to release Petitioner from custody
immediately.
4. 	Within three (3) days of the date of this Order, the Government shall
provide the Court with a status update confirming Petitioner’s release.
5. 	Respondents are directed to release Petitioner: (1) in Minnesota; (2) with
all personal documents and belongings, such as his driver’s license, passport, other
CASE 0:26-cv-00833-DWF-JFD Doc. 6 Filed 02/02/26 Page 4 of 5

5
immigration documents, and cell phone; (3) without conditions such as ankle monitors or
tracking devices; and (4) with all clothing and outerwear he was wearing at the time of
detention, or other proper winter attire. In addition, Respondents shall provide
reasonable advance notice to counsel to arrange for a safe release of Petitioner.
6. 	Respondents are ENJOINED from re-detaining Petitioner under this same
statutory theory, absent materially changed circumstances.
7. 	Within thirty (30) days of final judgment in this action, Petitioner may
move to recover attorneys’ fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act,
28 U.S.C. § 2412(d).
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: February 2, 2026 	s/Donovan W. Frank
DONOVAN W. FRANK
United States District Judge
CASE 0:26-cv-00833-DWF-JFD Doc. 6 Filed 02/02/26 Page 5 of 5