Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
ADRIAN REMBERTO PEREZ
MARINERO,
Petitioner,
vs.
PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General,
et al.,
Respondents.
0:26-CV-1007
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
GRANTING PETITION FOR WRIT
OF HABEAS CORPUS
The petitioner1 is a noncitizen currently detained by U.S. Immigration
and Customs Enforcement (ICE), seeking a writ of habeas corpus under 28
U.S.C. § 2241. The petitioner contends their detention is unlawful due to denial
of a bond hearing pursuant to 8 C.F.R. §§ 236.1(d)(1) and 1236.1(d)(1). See
filing 1. The government responds that detention is mandatory, not
discretionary, and the petitioner is not eligible to be released. See filing 4.
The briefing demonstrates that the petitioner's application for the writ
only presents issues of law—and the government does not dispute this point,
having been directed to address it, see filing 2 at 2; filing 4 at 15—so the Court
declines to hold a hearing. See § 2243. The Court will grant the petition for the
reasons thoroughly articulated by this Court in Velasco Hurtado v. Bondi, No.
0:26-CV-546, 2026 WL 184884 (D. Minn. Jan. 24, 2026). The government shall
immediately—if necessary—return the petitioner to the state of Minnesota
and release the petitioner from custody.
1 The Court finds that the uncontroverted allegations of the petition sufficiently establish the
standing of the petitioner's next friend to bring this action on behalf of the petitioner. See 28
U.S.C. § 2242; see also Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149, 165-65 (1990); Yessenia S.T. v.
Bondi, No. 26-CV-30, 2026 WL 102407, at *2 (D. Minn. Jan. 14, 2026).
CASE 0:26-cv-01007-JMG-DLM Doc. 6 Filed 02/09/26 Page 1 of 3

2
The government has suggested that there may be an administrative
warrant for the petitioner's arrest, but that it's unable to produce the warrant
at this time. See filing 5. The existence of a warrant matters, because it's the
warrant that triggers 28 U.S.C. § 1226(a). If arrested pursuant to a warrant,
the petitioner would be entitled to a bond hearing; if not arrested pursuant to
a warrant, the petitioner is entitled to outright release. See Velasco Hurtado v.
Bondi, 2026 WL 184884, at *6 (citing Ahmed M. v. Bondi, No. 25-CV-4711,
2026 WL 25627, at *3 (D. Minn. Jan. 5, 2026) (collecting cases)).
But nothing has been shown. "Habeas corpus" may literally mean "have
the body," but in the present context it really means "have the warrant," and
ICE apparently doesn't. All the Court has is hearsay from an unnamed ICE
functionary who "believe[s]" there's a warrant for the petitioner, but it's "not
uploaded to their system." Filing 5. That's not the same as saying there is a
warrant, and it's tantamount to admitting the petitioner wasn't arrested
pursuant to one, because it's hard to see how ICE could have arrested the
petitioner on a warrant when ICE can't even say for sure whether one exists.
And issuing an administrative warrant after an arrest, if authorities even did
that much, isn't good enough to trigger § 1226(a). See Alberto C.M. v. Noem,
No. 0:26-cv-380, 2026 WL 184530, at *2-3 (D. Minn. Jan. 23, 2026).
What the declaration filed by the government's counsel establishes is
only that he asked his client for proof that the petitioner was detained lawfully,
and his client was unable to provide it to him. The Court is neither obliged nor
inclined to invite a further response, see Fontenot v. Crow, 4 F.4th 982, 1058
(10th Cir. 2021), given that the entire purpose of the return is to set up the
facts warranting denial, see Gladden v. Gidley, 337 F.2d 575, 578 (9th Cir.
1964) (citing Walker v. Johnston, 312 U.S. 275 (1941)).
In short, the government was expressly directed to address whether the
petitioner was arrested pursuant to a warrant and, if so, to provide a copy of
that warrant. See filing 2 at 2. The government's counsel tried, but the most
CASE 0:26-cv-01007-JMG-DLM Doc. 6 Filed 02/09/26 Page 2 of 3

3
ICE can say is that a warrant might exist, somewhere . . . and pointedly hasn't
even actually said that the petitioner was arrested pursuant to one. On that
record, outright release is the appropriate remedy. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED:
1. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (filing 1) is granted.
2. The government shall, if necessary, immediately return the
petitioner to the District of Minnesota.
3. When the petitioner is in Minnesota, the government shall
immediately release the petitioner from custody with no new
conditions, and shall return any personal property seized
from the petitioner when detained.
4. No later than February 11, 2026, the government shall file
a status report certifying compliance with this Order.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated this 9th day of February, 2026.
BY THE COURT:
John M. Gerrard
Senior United States District Judge
CASE 0:26-cv-01007-JMG-DLM Doc. 6 Filed 02/09/26 Page 3 of 3