Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
ALFREDO A. and JULIO S.C.,
Petitioners,
v.
DAVID EASTERWOOD, in his official
capacity as Field Office Director, St. Paul
Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement; TODD LYONS, in his official
capacity as Director of U.S. Immigration
and Customs Enforcement; MARKWAYNE
MULLIN, in his official capacity as
Secretary of Homeland Security; U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY; U.S. IMMIGRATION AND
CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT; and TODD
BLANCHE, in his official capacity as Acting
Attorney General of the United States,1
Respondents.
Case No. 26‐CV‐1016 (PJS/DLM)
ORDER
Brian D. Clark, LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP, for petitioners.
Friedrich A.P. Siekert, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, for
respondents.
1Markwayne Mullin and Todd Blanche are automatically substituted as
respondents in place of Kristi Noem and Pamela Bondi pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d).
CASE 0:26-cv-01016-PJS-DLM Doc. 34 Filed 04/09/26 Page 1 of 5

On February 7, 2026, the Court granted the joint petition of Alfredo A. and Julio
S.C. for a writ of habeas corpus. ECF No. 12. 2 Alfredo now seeks additional relief,
alleging that respondents unlawfully “forced [him] to sign an Order of Release on
Recognizance [(“ORR”)]” before releasing him from immigration custody pursuant to
the Court’s order. ECF No. 14 at 2; see also Third Clark Decl. ¶ 3, ECF No. 15. 3 Among
other things, the ORR required Alfredo to report to a duty officer at the Bishop Henry
Whipple Federal Building on March 6, 2026. ECF No. 14 at 2; see also Siekert Decl. Ex. D,
ECF No. 27‐4. Alfredo argues that the ORR violates the Court’s orders, see ECF Nos. 7,
12, and asks the Court to strike the ORR “from the record” and to “negate the unlawful
conditions.” ECF No. 14 at 3.
The Court directed respondents to “identify any legal authority for the release
conditions imposed upon petitioner.” ECF No. 16. In response, respondents asserted
2Pursuant to this District’s policy in immigration cases, the Court identifies
petitioners only by their first names and last initials.
3The Court ordered Alfredo’s immediate release on February 6, 2026—one day
before it granted his habeas petition—to allow Alfredo to be present with his one‐year‐
old son who had suffered severe second‐ and third‐degree burns and was scheduled for
emergency surgery. ECF No. 7; see also ECF Nos. 4–5. The ORR was signed on that
date. Siekert Decl. Ex. D.
-2-
CASE 0:26-cv-01016-PJS-DLM Doc. 34 Filed 04/09/26 Page 2 of 5

that Alfredo was arrested and detained “[p]ursuant to [a] final order of removal,”4 and
therefore was subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1231. ECF No. 25 at 2–3.
Under § 1231, detention is mandatory during a 90‐day “removal period” that
begins once a noncitizen is “ordered removed” and the removal order becomes
“administratively final.” Johnson v. Guzman Chavez, 594 U.S. 523, 534–35 (2021); see also
8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(2)(A) (“During the removal period, the Attorney General shall detain
the alien.”) (emphasis added). A removal order does not become administratively final
until the conclusion of removal proceedings, which typically occurs after the Board of
Immigration Appeals dismisses an appeal. 8 C.F.R. § 1241.1(a). When a removal order
is issued in absentia, though, it is deemed to be administratively final “immediately
upon entry.” 8 C.F.R. § 1241.1(e). The record reflects that Alfredo was ordered
removed in absentia on January 13, 2026—one day prior to his arrest. Siekert Decl. Ex. C,
ECF No. 27‐3 (stating that removal order is “final unless a Motion to Reopen is filed”).
As a result, Alfredo was subject to an administratively final order of removal—and thus
4Alfredo points to “[p]ublicly available information” that contradicts
respondents’ “statement that Alfredo was detained ‘pursuant to the final order of
removal.’” ECF No. 28 at 7 (citing Jeff Day & Liz Sawyer, FBI Reveals How Mistaken
Identity by ICE Led to Chase, Shooting of Venezuelan Immigrant, Star Trib. (Jan. 22, 2026,
4:54 pm), https://www.startribune.com/fbi‐reveals‐how‐mistaken‐identity‐by‐ice‐led‐to‐
chase‐shooting‐of‐venezuelan‐immigrant‐in‐north‐minneapolis/601567978)). But even
if Alfredo was not arrested because he was subject to a final removal order, the fact
remains that, at the time of his arrest and release, he was subject to a final removal
order.
-3-
CASE 0:26-cv-01016-PJS-DLM Doc. 34 Filed 04/09/26 Page 3 of 5

was subject to mandatory detention—when he was released from immigration custody
and the ORR was signed on February 6, 2026.5
The only remaining question, then, is whether the ORR conflicts with any order
of this Court. Before Alfredo was required to sign the ORR, the Court had merely
ordered that “petitioner Alfredo A. must be RELEASED from custody
immediately—and that Alfredo must not leave the District of Minnesota—until further
order of this Court.” ECF No. 7 at 2. The Court did not order that Alfredo be released
“unconditionally” or “without conditions” nor in any other way prohibit respondents
from imposing conditions. Given that, at the time that the conditions were imposed on
Alfredo’s release, he was subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1231—and
given that the conditions that respondents imposed were reasonable—the Court will
not order respondents to eliminate or modify those conditions.
ORDER
Based on the foregoing, and on all of the files, records, and proceedings herein,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT petitioner Alfredo A.’s motion for additional relief
[ECF No. 14] is DENIED.
5Alfredo argues that the removal order is no longer final because he filed a
motion to reopen his immigration proceedings on March 5, 2026. ECF No. 28 at 5. At
the time of Alfredo’s release on February 6, 2026, though, no such motion had been
filed. The motion to reopen does not alter the conclusion that Alfredo was subject to an
administratively final order of removal at the time of his release—that is, at the time that
the conditions were imposed.
-4-
CASE 0:26-cv-01016-PJS-DLM Doc. 34 Filed 04/09/26 Page 4 of 5

Dated: April 9, 2026 	/s/ Patrick J. Schiltz
Patrick J. Schiltz, Chief Judge
United States District Court
-5-
CASE 0:26-cv-01016-PJS-DLM Doc. 34 Filed 04/09/26 Page 5 of 5