Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Jonathan A. L.,
Petitioner,
v.
Pamela Bondi, Attorney General,
Kristi Noem, Secretary, U.S. Department
of Homeland Security, Todd M. Lyons,
Acting Director of Immigration and
Customs Enforcement, and David
Easterwood, Acting Director, St. Paul
Field Office Immigration and
Customs Enforcement,
Respondents.
Case No. 26-cv-00925 (MJD/ECW)
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Jonathan A. L.’s Verified Petition for
a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, filed on February 1, 2026. (Dkt. 1.)
According to the Petition, Petitioner is a citizen of Ecuador who has resided in the United
States for approximately two years, although the exact date of entry is unknown. (Id.
¶ 12.) On January 30, 2026, he was detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement
(“ICE”) in Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, and has been in ICE custody since that date.
(Id.) The Petition alleges, based on information and belief, that Petitioner is being held at
the Bishop Henry Whipple Federal Building in Fort Snelling, Minnesota. (Id. ¶ 19.)
Petitioner alleges that he does not have a final order of removal. (Id. ¶ 13.) Petitioner
argues that he is subject only to discretionary detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), not
CASE 0:26-cv-00925-MJD-ECW Doc. 7 Filed 02/06/26 Page 1 of 10

2
mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2), and that he must be therefore released
in Minnesota with his possessions and without conditions because he was not arrested on
a warrant. (Id. at 1, 12-16.)1 In the alternative, Petitioner requests that he be provided
with a bond hearing pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). (Id. at 1, 15.)
On February 1, 2026, U.S. District Judge Michael J. Davis issued an Order
requiring Respondents to file their answer no later than February 4, 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.) In addition, Judge Davis
required that Respondents’ answer include “affidavits and exhibits as are needed to
establish the lawfulness and correct duration of Petitioner’s detention” and “[w]hether the
absence of a warrant preceding Petitioner’s arrest necessitates Petitioner’s immediate
release.” (Id. at 2-3 ¶ 2(a), (d).) Judge Davis also found that “habeas jurisdiction
attached at the time of Petitioner’s apprehension in this District” and that “jurisdiction is
not defeated by any subsequent decision by Respondents to transfer Petitioner to another
state.”2 (Id. at 2 ¶ 4(a)-(b).) In turn, Judge Davis 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 he
has already been removed from Minnesota. (Id. at 3 ¶¶ 5-6.)
1 	Page number citations in this Report and Recommendation are to the page number
assigned by CM/ECF.
2 	Respondents do not dispute the Court’s jurisdiction over the Petition.
CASE 0:26-cv-00925-MJD-ECW Doc. 7 Filed 02/06/26 Page 2 of 10

3
On February 4, 2026, Respondents filed a Response. (Dkt. 3.) Respondents filed
no supporting declaration or other evidence in support of their assertions or positions.
Petitioner filed his reply on February 5, 2026 (Dkt. 6), and the case is now ripe for
decision.
I. 	FACTS
Petitioner alleges, and Respondents do not dispute, that he is a citizen of Ecuador
who has resided in the United States for approximately two years. (Dkt. 1 ¶ 12.)
Petitioner is married and has a minor child. (Id. ¶ 14.) As noted previously, ICE
detained Petitioner on January 30, 2026 in Brooklyn Center. (Id. ¶ 15.) Petitioner was
driving with his spouse and child when two unmarked ICE vehicles blocked in his car,
broke the back passenger window, and detained him. (Id.) While the ICE agents claimed
they had a warrant for Petitioner, they did not produce a warrant. (Id.)
Respondents have provided no additional evidence or facts about the
circumstances or reason for Petitioner’s detention, other than to assert that an examining
immigration officer has determined that Petitioner is “not clearly and without a doubt
entitled to be admitted” and is therefore “is ineligible for release or bond.” (Dkt. 5 at 1.)
Respondents do not represent that a warrant preceded Petitioner’s arrest and in fact do not
respond at all to Judge Davis’s order to inform the Court whether the absence of a
warrant preceding Petitioner’s arrest necessitates Petitioner’s immediate release. (See
Dkt. 5.) Finally, Respondents do not address the present location of Petitioner. (See id.)
CASE 0:26-cv-00925-MJD-ECW Doc. 7 Filed 02/06/26 Page 3 of 10

4
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 his 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:
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,
that he provided with a bond hearing pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). (Dkt. 1 at 1, 15-16.)
The Response makes the following argument for denial of the Petition:
This petition raises legal and factual issues similar to those in prior habeas
petitions this Court has decided. Those issues are currently before the Eighth
Circuit on expedited review in Avila v. Bondi, No. 25-3248 (8th Cir. docketed
Nov. 10, 2025). Rather than belabor these proceedings by rearguing points
CASE 0:26-cv-00925-MJD-ECW Doc. 7 Filed 02/06/26 Page 4 of 10

5
the Court has considered and rejected, Federal Respondents assert all
arguments raised by the government in Avila and respectfully request that
the Court preserve those arguments for any appeal in this case. Cf. Mauro
Johnny P.P. v. Lyons, Case No. 26-cv-204 (LMP/DJF), Order, ECF No. 5 at
2 n.1 (calling abbreviated response “a model example” in the circumstances,
as it “preserves the Government’s arguments for appeal while avoiding the
effort of filing the same recycled template that this Court has already
rejected”).
(Dkt. 5 at 1-2.) Respondents did not make any specific arguments to support their
request for denial. (Id.)
In his Reply, Petitioner argues that “[c]ritical to this case, Respondents do not
dispute any of the factual allegations in Petitioner’s petition, including the absence of a
warrant preceding Petitioner’s arrest.” (Dkt. 6 at 2 ¶ 6.)
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 him 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
CASE 0:26-cv-00925-MJD-ECW Doc. 7 Filed 02/06/26 Page 5 of 10

6
question on a national level, over 300 cases (and counting) have been decided adversely
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 acknowledges and has carefully reviewed, but is not persuaded by, the
minority of decisions in this District that have reached a different conclusion.3 See, e.g.,
Abdirahmaan G. v. Noem, No. 26-34 (PAM/SGE), (Dkt. 7) (D. Minn. Jan. 14, 2026);
Jose C. v. Bondi, No. 26-135 (PAM/DTS), (Dkt. 14) (D. Minn. Jan 20. 2026); Apilonar
L. v. Bondi, No. 26-159 (PAM/JFD), (Dkt. 7) (D. Minn. Jan 21, 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) (“To be
seeking admission means to be seeking entry, which ‘by its own force implies a coming
from outside.’” (quoting United States ex rel. Claussen v. Day, 279 U.S. 398, 401 (1929))
(citation omitted); see also Edwin C. R., v. Bondi, No. 26-00355 (MJD/JFD), 2026 WL
185068, at *2 (D. Minn. Jan. 25, 2026) (distinguishing the minority line of cases).
3 	Respondents did not cite these cases, but the Court addresses them for the sake of
completeness.
CASE 0:26-cv-00925-MJD-ECW Doc. 7 Filed 02/06/26 Page 6 of 10

7
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 in light of Petitioner’s request that he be released
because he was not detained pursuant to a warrant. Again, Respondents do not address
this argument. (See Dkt. 5.) 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, at *3
(D. Minn. Jan. 5, 2026) (collecting cases) (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.,
2026 WL 185068, at *2 (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)); Jennings
v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281, 288 (2018) (“Section 1226(a) sets out the default rule: The
Attorney General may issue a warrant for the arrest and detention of an alien ‘pending a
decision on whether the alien is to be removed from the United States.’”).
Respondents have not attempted to satisfy the warrant requirement of § 1226(a),
even after being ordered to do so by the Court. (Dkt. 3 at 2 ¶ 2(a), (d).) “Accordingly,
immediate release is the appropriate remedy.” Pedro L., v. Todd Lyons, et al., No. 26-
CV-00707 (MJD/ECW), 2026 WL 295386, at *4 (D. Minn. Feb. 1, 2026) R. & R.
adopted, Docket Entry No. 9 (D. Minn. Feb. 4, 2026); see also Marlon S.T.L., P, v.
Pamela Bondi, et al., No. 26-665 (DWF/LIB), 2026 WL 251975, at *2 (D. Minn. Jan. 30,
CASE 0:26-cv-00925-MJD-ECW Doc. 7 Filed 02/06/26 Page 7 of 10

8
2026) (“A detainee being held pursuant to § 1226(a), as Petitioner is here, must have
been served an arrest warrant prior to detainment.”) (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a)); 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));
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), -
- F. Supp. 3d ----, 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, at *3 (recommending immediate release where there was “not even a
hint that a warrant was obtained” prior to detention); Ahmed M., 2026 WL 25627, at *3
(collecting cases). Consequently, the Court recommends that the Petition be granted
insofar as Respondents be ordered to immediately release Petitioner.
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 8, 2026. Responses to objections are due on February 10, 2026.
CASE 0:26-cv-00925-MJD-ECW Doc. 7 Filed 02/06/26 Page 8 of 10

9
IV. 	RECOMMENDATION
Based on the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS RECOMMENDED
THAT the Petition (Dkt. 1) be GRANTED insofar as:
1. 	Petitioner’s current detention be declared unlawful under the Constitution
and laws of the United States;
2. 	Respondents be ordered to immediately release Petitioner from custody in
Minnesota and, in any case no later than 11:00 a.m. Central Time on the
day following an Order adopting this Report and Recommendation;
3. 	Respondents be ordered to coordinate Petitioner’s release with Petitioner’s
counsel;
4. 	Respondents be ordered to release Petitioner with all personal documents
and belongings, such as his driver’s license, employment authorization,
passport, other immigration documents, cell phone, and coat and other
outerwear, and without any conditions of release, such as ankle monitors or
tracking devices, where Respondents’ inability to immediately comply with
this requirement shall not be a basis for delaying Petitioner’s release; and
5. 	The Government be required within 72 hours after issuance of an Order
adopting this Report and Recommendation to provide the Court with a
status update confirming Petitioner’s release and other compliance with the
Order.
CASE 0:26-cv-00925-MJD-ECW Doc. 7 Filed 02/06/26 Page 9 of 10

10
Dated: February 6, 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 8, 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 10, 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-00925-MJD-ECW Doc. 7 Filed 02/06/26 Page 10 of 10