Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Tomas M.G.,
Petitioner,
v.
Todd M. Lyons, Acting Director, U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement;
David Easterwood, Acting Director Saint
Paul Field Office Director, U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement,
St. Paul Field Office; Kristi Noem, U.S.
Department of Homeland Security; Joel
Brott, Sheriff of Sherburne County; and
Pamela Bondi, Attorney General of the
United States,
Respondents.
Civil No. 26-1151 (DWF/ECW)
MEMORANDUM
OPINION AND ORDER
INTRODUCTION
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Tomas M.G.’s petition for a writ of
habeas corpus (the “Petition”). (Doc. No. 1.) Respondents filed a form response
asserting authority to detain Petitioner under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A). (Doc. No. 4.)
For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants the Petition and orders Respondents to
release Petitioner immediately.
BACKGROUND
Petitioner is a citizen of Mexico and resident of Minnesota. (Doc. No. 1 ¶¶ 12,
18.) Petitioner lives in Minnesota with his wife and stepson, both U.S. citizens. (Id.
¶ 18; Doc. No. 5 at 2.) He entered the United States without inspection in 2021. (Doc.
CASE 0:26-cv-01151-DWF-ECW Doc. 6 Filed 02/11/26 Page 1 of 5

2
No. 1 ¶ 20.) Petitioner and his wife were preparing to file a marriage petition at the time
of his detention. (Id. ¶ 21.) On December 31, 2025, Petitioner was arrested by
immigration authorities in Minneapolis, Minnesota while he and his wife were driving
their son to Children’s Hospital for surgery. (Id. ¶ 22.) He was initially detained at the
Whipple Federal Building at Fort Snelling in Minnesota, then transferred to the
Sherburne County Jail. (Id.)
It seems that removal proceedings have been initiated against Petitioner, although
his counsel has not been provided a Notice to Appear or any other formal notice as to any
charges. (Id. ¶¶ 23-24.) Respondents did not supply any additional information about
removal proceedings in their response. (See Doc. No. 4.) 1
Petitioner filed the Petition on February 6, 2026. (Doc. No. 1 at 15.) He asserts
that his detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) violates the Immigration and
Nationality Act and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. (Id. ¶¶ 32-41.)
Petitioner asks the Court, among other things, to order his immediate release or,
alternatively, to order a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226. (Id. at 14-15.) Respondents
timely filed a form response. (Doc. No. 4.)
1 	Petitioner supposedly had a bond hearing on February 10, 2026, in front of an
immigration judge at Fort Snelling. (Doc. No. 1 ¶ 25.) Neither party informed the Court
of the result of that hearing. Nevertheless, the result of that hearing is irrelevant because
the Court finds below that Petitioner’s detention is unlawful.
CASE 0:26-cv-01151-DWF-ECW Doc. 6 Filed 02/11/26 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 form response, arguing that Petitioner is subject to
mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A), and pointing the Court to their
arguments in a pending Eighth Circuit case: Avila v. Bondi, No. 25-3248. (Doc. No. 4.)
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 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 approximately five years. See Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281, 289 (2018)
CASE 0:26-cv-01151-DWF-ECW Doc. 6 Filed 02/11/26 Page 3 of 5

4
(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 detention. 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
detention 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:
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.
CASE 0:26-cv-01151-DWF-ECW Doc. 6 Filed 02/11/26 Page 4 of 5

5
3. 	Respondents are ORDERED to release Petitioner from custody
immediately.
4. 	Within three (3) days of the date of this Order, Respondents shall provide
the Court with a status update confirming Petitioner’s release.
5. 	Respondents are directed to release Petitioner:
a. 	In Minnesota;
b. 	With all personal documents and belongings, such as his driver’s
license, passport, other immigration documents, and cell phone;
c. 	Without any conditions on release, including but not limited to
requiring Petitioner to sign an “Order of Release on Recognizance” or requiring
Petitioner to enroll and complete an “Alternatives to Detention” program;
d. 	Without any tracking devices; and
e. 	With all clothing and outerwear he was wearing at the time of
detention, or other proper winter attire.
6. 	Respondents shall provide reasonable advance notice to counsel to arrange
for a safe release of Petitioner.
7. 	Respondents are ENJOINED from re-detaining Petitioner under this same
statutory theory, absent materially changed circumstances.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: February 11, 2026 	s/Donovan W. Frank
DONOVAN W. FRANK
United States District Judge
CASE 0:26-cv-01151-DWF-ECW Doc. 6 Filed 02/11/26 Page 5 of 5