Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
David R .,
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; David Easterwood, Acting
Director, St. Paul Field Office Immigration
and Customs Enforcement; and Ryan Shea,
Sheriff of Freeborn County,
Respondents.
No. 26-cv- 0935 (SRN/LIB)
ORDER
Lauren M. Rossitto, Erickson Zierke Kuderer & Madsen, P.A., 114 W. 2nd St., Fairmont,
MN 56031, for Petitioner
Ana Voss,1 U.S. Attorney’s Office, 300 S. 4th St., Minneapolis, MN 55415, for Federal
Respondents
David John Walker, Freeborn County Attorney’s Office, Freeborn County Government
Center, 411 S. Broadway Ave., Albert Lea, MN 56007, for Ryan Shea, Sheriff of
Freeborn County
1 The Respondents’ response in this matter was signed by David R. Hackworthy on behalf
of the U.S. Attorney’s Office. Mr. Hackworthy has not filed a notice of appearance in this
case.
CASE 0:26-cv-00935-SRN-LIB Doc. 7 Filed 02/04/26 Page 1 of 8

2
SUSAN RICHARD NELSON, United States District Judge
Before the Court is the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”) [Doc. No.
1] filed by Petitioner David R. 	Petitioner seeks immediate release from detention, or a
prompt bond hearing in Immigration Court. 	Respondents oppose the Petition. (Resp’ts’
Opp’n [Doc. No. 5].)
The Court has taken the Petition under advisement on the papers. For the reasons
set 	forth 	below, 	the 	Petition 	is 	granted 	and 	Respondents 	shall 	release 	Petitioner
immediately.
I. 	BACKGROUND
Petitioner is a resident of St. Paul, Minnesota, and a citizen of Mexico, who has
lived in the United States since September 1988. 	(Pet. ¶¶ 7, 13.) 	Upon information and
belief, he is represented by an attorney in immigration proceedings and has a pending green
card application. 	(Id. ¶ 14.) 	He states that although he received a letter stating that his
application was approved, he has not yet received a green card. (Id.) Petitioner has many
relatives in Minnesota and is the authorized caregiver for his 87-year-old father who suffers
from numerous health issues. (Id. ¶ 15.) As his father’s caregiver, Petitioner is responsible
for taking him to medical appointments and for running necessary errands. (Id.)
Respondents arrested Petitioner without a warrant on January 4, 2026, while he was
leaving his brother’s house with his father. 	(Id. ¶ 16.) 	He alleges that the masked ICE
agents who arrested him did not have a warrant. (Id.) Respondents are detaining him in
ICE custody at the Freeborn County Jail in Albert Lea, Minnesota. (Id. ¶ 20.)
CASE 0:26-cv-00935-SRN-LIB Doc. 7 Filed 02/04/26 Page 2 of 8

3
Petitioner filed the instant Petition on February 1, 2026, asserting that he is entitled
to immediate release, or, in the alternative, a bond hearing. (Pet. ¶ 1.)
In the Court’s February 1, 2026 Order to Show Cause, the Court enjoined
Respondents from moving Petitioner out of Minnesota until further order of the court, and,
to the extent he was released, likewise required Petitioner to remain in Minnesota while his
Petition is pending. (OSC [Doc. No. 3] ¶¶ 4–5.) The Court also ordered Respondents to
show cause for the “true cause and proper duration of Petitioner’s confinement,” and
directed Respondents to address “[w]hether the absence of a warrant preceding Petitioner’s
arrest necessitates Petitioner’s immediate release.” (Id. ¶¶ 1, 2(e).) Additionally, the Court
required Respondents to distinguish the instant Petition from the Court’s prior rulings in
Maldonado v. Olson, 795 F. Supp. 3d 1134 (D. Minn. 2025), and E.M. v. Noem, No. 25-
cv-3975 (SRN/DTS), 2025 WL 3157839 (D. Minn. Nov. 12, 2025). (Id. ¶ 2(d).)
Respondents contend that Petitioner is subject to mandatory detention under 8
U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) and is therefore not entitled to release. 	Their position is consistent
with new interim guidance from the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”)/ICE, and
a recent decision from the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) finding that all persons
who enter the United States without inspection, including those who have been residing
here for some time, are “applicants for admission” under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(a), subject to
mandatory detention, rather than discretionary detention under § 1226(a). Maldonado, 795
F. Supp. 3d at 1150 (noting interim guidance); Matter of Yajure Hurtado, 29 I. & N. Dec.
216 (BIA 2025). Respondents invoke their prior positions, as set forth in Avila v. Bondi,
No. 25-3248 (8th Cir. Nov. 10, 2025), currently pending before the Eighth Circuit Court
CASE 0:26-cv-00935-SRN-LIB Doc. 7 Filed 02/04/26 Page 3 of 8

4
of Appeals. (Resp’ts’ Opp’n at 1.) It is Respondents’ position that as a matter of statutory
interpretation, Petitioner falls under the provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1225, not § 1226, and
therefore, is not entitled to release. (Id.) In Respondents’ one-paragraph Response to the
Petition, they failed to distinguish the instant Petition from the Court’s prior rulings in
Maldonado, 795 F. Supp. 3d 1134, and E.M., 2025 WL 3157839, and failed to address
whether a warrant was issued for Petitioner’s arrest.
II. 	DISCUSSION
A. Section 1226 Applies
While the parties dispute whether 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) or § 1226(a) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) applies to a noncitizen who is already residing
in the United States, there is no dispute that Petitioner was arrested while already residing
in the United States.
This Court has previously found, along with the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals—
the only circuit court to have addressed the issue—and the vast majority of district courts
throughout the country, that the applicable detention scheme for noncitizens already
residing in the country is under § 1226(a), absent any exceptions under § 1226(c).
Maldonado, 795 F. Supp. 3d at 1150–52, E.M., 2025 WL 3157839, at *4–8; Castañon-
Nava v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 161 F.4th 1048, 1060–62 (7th Cir. 2025); see also
Demirel v. Fed. Detention Ctr., No. 25-5488, 2025 WL 3218243, at *4 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 18,
2025) (collecting cases); Pizarro Reyes v. Raycraft, No. 25-12546, 2025 WL 2609425, at
*6–7 (E. D. Mich. Sept. 9, 2024) (collecting cases); Yulexi T. v. Noem, No. 26-cv-68
(ECT/DTS), 2026 WL 77022, at *2 (D. Minn. Jan. 10, 2026); Kelvin N. v. Bondi, No. 26-
CASE 0:26-cv-00935-SRN-LIB Doc. 7 Filed 02/04/26 Page 4 of 8

5
CV-32 (JMB/JFD), 2026 WL 63423, at *2–3 (D. Minn. Jan. 8, 2026); Iishaar-Abdi v.
Klang, No. 25-CV-4686 (JRT/DTS), 2025 WL 3764853, at *1 (D. Minn. Dec. 30, 2025);
Awaale v. Noem, No. 25-cv-4551 (MJD/JFD), 2025 WL 3754012, at *1 (D. Minn. Dec.
29, 2025); Hugo v. Olson, No. 25-cv-4593 (LMP/DTS), 2025 WL 3688074, at *2–3 (D.
Minn. Dec. 19, 2025); Lionel V.F. v. Bondi, No. 25-cv-4474 (PJS/LIB), 2025 WL 3485600,
at *1 (D. Minn. Dec. 4, 2025). By contrast, § 1225(b)(2) applies to noncitizens at or near
the border. 	Alvarez Ortiz v. Freden, --- F. Supp. 3d ---, No. 25-CV-960-LJV, 2025 WL
3085032, at *10 (W.D.N.Y. Nov. 4. 2025). 	Respondents do not assert that any of the
exceptions under § 1226(c) apply. 	The Court remains unpersuaded by Respondents’
statutory interpretation of §§ 1225(b)(2)(A), but notes that Respondents’ arguments are
preserved for appeal.
B. Appropriate Remedy
Having determined that § 1225(b) is 	inapplicable to 	Petitioner, 	who would
otherwise fall under § 1226(a), the Court turns to the appropriate remedy. Section 1226(a)
provides that “[o]n 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.”
8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) (emphasis added). The statute requires the issuance of a warrant as a
precursor to detention under § 1226(a). Ahmed M. v. Bondi, No. 25-cv-4711 (ECT/SGE),
2026 WL 25627, at *3 (D. Minn. Jan. 5, 2026) (citing Chogllo Chafla v. Scott, --- F. Supp.
3d ---, 2025 WL 2688541, at *11 (D. Me. Sept. 21, 2025), appeal filed (Nov. 6, 2025);
J.A.C.P. v. Wofford, No. 1:25-cv-01354-KES-SKO (HC), 2025 WL 3013328, at *8 (E.D.
Cal. Oct. 27, 2025)). “[I]t follows that absent a warrant a noncitizen may not be arrested
CASE 0:26-cv-00935-SRN-LIB Doc. 7 Filed 02/04/26 Page 5 of 8

6
and detained under section 1226(a).” Chogllo Chafla, 2025 WL 2688541, at *11 (emphasis
in original).
Petitioner alleges that upon information and belief, he was arrested and detained
without a warrant. 	(Pet. ¶¶ 16, 30, 53.) 	Although the Court’s Order to Show Cause
required Respondents to address “[w]hether the absence of a warrant preceding Petitioner’s
arrest necessitates Petitioner’s immediate release,” (OSC ¶ 2(e)), Respondents have not
produced a warrant, nor any other documentation supporting Petitioner’s detention.
Section 1226(a) requires, in the first instance, that Petitioner’s arrest and detention are
authorized by the issuance of a warrant. 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a); Vedat C. v. Bondi, No. 25-cv-
4642 (JWB/DTS) (D. Minn. Dec. 19, 2025). Again, Respondents have failed to produce,
much less address, § 1226(a)’s warrant requirement here. Petitioner’s arrest and detention
are therefore unauthorized.
As other judges in this District have found, the appropriate remedy for detention
that lacks a proper statutory basis under § 1226(a) is release. Ahmed M., 2026 WL 25627,
at *3 (finding release the appropriate remedy where Respondents did not produce a
warrant); Juan S.R. v. Bondi, No. 26-cv-0005 (PJS/LIB) (D. Minn. Jan. 12, 2026) [Doc.
No. 8 at 3–4] (following the reasoning of Ahmed M. and ordering immediate release where
Respondents failed to present evidence of a warrant); Vedat C. v. Bondi, No. 25-cv-4642
(JWB/DTS) (D. Minn. Dec. 19, 2025) [Doc. No. 9] at 6] (“[A] bond hearing presupposes
lawful detention authority under § 1226. 	Where that authority has not been invoked or
established, ordering a bond hearing would treat the absence of statutory power as a mere
procedural irregularity rather than a substantive defect.”). “Habeas relief . . . addresses the
CASE 0:26-cv-00935-SRN-LIB Doc. 7 Filed 02/04/26 Page 6 of 8

7
lawfulness of custody itself,” and “[f]or detention that lacks a lawful predicate, release is
an available and appropriate remedy.” Vedat C., No. 25-cv-4642 (JWB/DTS) (D. Minn.
Dec. 19, 2025) [Doc. No. 9] at 6]. Accordingly, Respondents shall release Petitioner from
custody.
Accordingly, the Court grants Petitioner’s request for release, as set forth below.
III. 	ORDER
Based on the submissions and the entire file and proceedings herein, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED that
1. 	Petitioner David R.’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus [Doc. No. 1] is
GRANTED, as follows:
2. 	Respondents shall release Petitioner from custody immediately, but no later than
within 48 hours.
3. 	Prior to Petitioner’s release, Respondents must first notify Petitioner’s legal
counsel within two hours of his impending release, and include the location of
his release and approximate release time, so that Petitioner’s counsel may make
transportation 	arrangements 	and 	Petitioner’s 	counsel 	may 	notify 	family
members.
4. 	Upon release, Respondents shall return to Petitioner all of his identifying
documents, immigration documents, paperwork of any kind, his cell phone, and
any other personal belongings, including clothing and jewelry.
5. 	Respondents may not administratively recharacterize the release granted by this
Order as grounds to impose conditions or re-impose existing conditions in
conjunction 	with 	release 	(including 	release 	on 	recognizance 	or 	similar
instruments), without prior notice to and authorization from the Court, or absent
a new and independently lawful custody decision properly executed under the
law.
6. 	Respondents shall confirm Petitioner’s release within 48 hours from the date of
this Order.
CASE 0:26-cv-00935-SRN-LIB Doc. 7 Filed 02/04/26 Page 7 of 8

8
7. 	Respondents may not re-detain Petitioner under a statutory theory this Court has
rejected in this proceeding absent materially changed circumstances.
Dated: February 4, 2026 	s/Susan Richard Nelson
SUSAN RICHARD NELSON
United States District Judge
CASE 0:26-cv-00935-SRN-LIB Doc. 7 Filed 02/04/26 Page 8 of 8