Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Otabek K.R.,
Petitioner,
v.
Pamela Jo Bondi, in her official capacity
as Attorney General of the United States;
Kristi Noem, in her official capacity as
Secretary of the U.S. Department of
Homeland Security; Todd Lyons, in his
official capacity as Acting Director of
Immigration and Customs Enforcement;
and David Easterwood, in his official
capacity as Acting Director, St. Paul Field
Office, Immigration and Customs
Enforcement,
Respondents.
Civil No. 26-955 (DWF/DJF)
MEMORANDUM
OPINION AND ORDER
INTRODUCTION
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Otabek K.R.’s petition for a writ of
habeas corpus alleging that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution and laws of
the United States (the “Petition”). (Doc. No. 1.) Respondents oppose. (Doc. No. 4.) For
the reasons set forth below, the Court grants the Petition and orders Respondents to
immediately release Petitioner.
BACKGROUND
Petitioner is a citizen of Uzbekistan who entered the United States on or about
May 28, 2023. (Doc. No. 1 ¶¶ 1, 17, 29.) Petitioner was arrested and released on his
CASE 0:26-cv-00955-DWF-DJF Doc. 6 Filed 02/06/26 Page 1 of 5

2
own recognizance pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226 in May 2023. (Id. ¶¶ 3, 17; Doc. No. 1-1.)
Petitioner was then placed in removal proceedings under 8 U.S.C. § 1229a. (Doc. No. 1
¶¶ 5, 31.) On January 11, 2024, Petitioner filed an asylum application. (Id. ¶¶ 6, 32.)
Petitioner has not violated the conditions of his release and has no criminal history. (Id.)
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) agents arrested Petitioner on
February 1, 2026, outside of his home. (Id. ¶¶ 7, 17, 33.) At the time that the Petition
was filed, Petitioner was detained at Fort Snelling in Minnesota. (Id. ¶¶ 13, 34.)
Petitioner is currently in ICE custody in El Paso, Texas. (Doc. No. 5-1.) 1
Petitioner filed the Petition on February 2, 2026. (Doc. No. 1 at 23.) Petitioner
asserts that his detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) is unlawful because it violates the
Administrative Procedure Act, the Immigration and Nationality Act, and the Due Process
Clause of the Fifth Amendment. (Id. ¶¶ 52-65.) Petitioner requests, among other things,
immediate release from detention or an order requiring Respondents to provide him with
a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226 within seven days. (Id. at 22-23.) On February 2,
2026, the Court ordered Respondents to answer the Petition on or before February 5,
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. 4.)
1 	Based on Petitioner’s allegation that he was in Minnesota at the time of filing, it
appears that Respondents violated the Court’s order enjoining Respondents from moving
Petitioner out of Minnesota while this action is pending. The Court will not order
contempt proceedings at this time, so long as Petitioner is promptly returned to
Minnesota and released.
CASE 0:26-cv-00955-DWF-DJF Doc. 6 Filed 02/06/26 Page 2 of 5

3
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
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), pointing the Court to their arguments in a pending
Eighth Circuit case, Avila v. Bondi, No. 25-3248, and offering additional authority. (See
Doc. No. 4.) 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
CASE 0:26-cv-00955-DWF-DJF Doc. 6 Filed 02/06/26 Page 3 of 5

4
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 nearly three years and has a pending application for asylum. 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), as Petitioner is here,
must have been served 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. 4). 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:
CASE 0:26-cv-00955-DWF-DJF Doc. 6 Filed 02/06/26 Page 4 of 5

5
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
immigration documents, and cell phone; (3) without conditions on release or any kind of
tracking device; 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.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: February 6, 2026 	s/Donovan W. Frank
DONOVAN W. FRANK
United States District Judge
CASE 0:26-cv-00955-DWF-DJF Doc. 6 Filed 02/06/26 Page 5 of 5