Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Alberto N.,
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
Eric Klang, Sheriff of Crow Wing County,
Respondents.
File No. 26-cv-1228 (ECT/ECW)
OPINION AND ORDER
Stephanie Morales, Minneapolis, MN, for Petitioner Alberto N.
Friedrich A.P. Siekert and David W. Fuller, United States Attorney’s Office, Minneapolis,
MN, for Respondents Pamela Bondi, Kristi Noem, Todd M. Lyons, and David Easterwood.
Petitioner Alberto N. is a Mexican citizen who has “lived in the United States since
some time in 2018,” when he entered the country without inspection. 	Pet. [ECF No. 1]
¶¶ 13–14. According to the Petition, “[i]t is believed that [Alberto] is currently in § 1229a
removal proceedings and he seeks to apply for relief from removal.” Id. ¶ 14. The Petition
also alleges, “[u]pon information and belief,” that Alberto “does not have a final order of
removal.” Id. On January 26, 2026, Alberto was “arrested by, or at least later transferred
into the custody of, [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] in a warrantless arrest.” Id.
¶ 15. At the time of the Petition’s filing, Alberto was “detained in the Crow Wing County
CASE 0:26-cv-01228-ECT-ECW Doc. 7 Filed 02/13/26 Page 1 of 6

2
[detention] facility,” id. ¶ 12, although his counsel was unable to locate him in the “ICE
detainee locator,” id. ¶ 15. 	Respondents1 do not dispute the Petition’s facts. 	See ECF
No. 5.2
Alberto challenges his detention under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 	Pet. ¶ 2. 	He claims he
has been wrongly classified as an 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) detainee (whose detention is
mandatory) rather than an 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) detainee (whose detention is discretionary
and who is entitled to a bond hearing). 	Pet. ¶¶ 22–25; see Jose J.O.E. v. Bondi, 797 F.
Supp. 3d 957, 961–62 (D. Minn. 2025) (explaining legal framework). 	According to
Alberto, that misclassification and denial of a bond hearing violate his right to due process
under the Fifth Amendment, the Immigration and Nationality Act, and the Administrative
Procedure Act. 	See Pet. ¶¶ 26–42. 	Alberto seeks issuance of a writ of habeas corpus
requiring his release unless Respondents provide a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a);
issuance of an order enjoining his transfer outside of the District of Minnesota during the
pendency of his Petition, and “any other and further relief that this Court may deem just
and proper.” See id. at 13–14.
Recognizing that “[t]his case presents similar legal and factual issues to those in
prior habeas petitions,” Respondents argue that Alberto is subject to mandatory detention
under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). 	See ECF No. 5 at 2. 	This raises an issue of statutory
1 	When used in this Order, “Respondents” refers to the federal officials named as
Respondents. Respondent Eric Klang, the Crow Wing County Sheriff, has not appeared in
these proceedings. See Dkt.
2 	In their answer, Respondents state that they “did have a warrant for Petitioner’s
arrest.” ECF No. 5 at 11. However, no warrant has been produced. See generally Dkt.
CASE 0:26-cv-01228-ECT-ECW Doc. 7 Filed 02/13/26 Page 2 of 6

3
interpretation3 that courts in this District have repeatedly considered and rejected, and it
will be rejected here as well.
Alberto has shown he has been misclassified under § 1225(b)(2) rather than
§ 1226(a). 	As courts have explained, the former statute applies to applicants “seeking
admission,” and the latter to “aliens already in the country.” 	8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A);
Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281, 289 (2018) (construing 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and (c));
see Francisco T. v. Bondi, 797 F. Supp. 3d 970, 974–76 (D. Minn. 2025); Belsai D.S. v.
Bondi, --- F. Supp. 3d ---, No. 25-cv-3682 (KMM/EMB), 2025 WL 2802947, at *6–7 (D.
Minn. Oct. 1, 2025); Eliseo A.A. v. Olson, --- F. Supp. 3d ---, No. 25-cv-3381 (JWB/DJF),
2025 WL 2886729, at *2–4 (D. Minn. Oct. 8, 2025); Avila v. Bondi, No. 25-cv-3741
(JRT/SGE), 2025 WL 2976539, at *5–7 (D. Minn. Oct. 21, 2025), appeal filed, No. 25-
3248 (8th Cir. Nov. 10, 2025); Andres R.E. v. Bondi, No. 25-cv-3946 (NEB/DLM), 2025
WL 3146312, at *2–3 (D. Minn. Nov. 4, 2025); E.M. v. Noem, 25-cv-3975 (SRN/DTS),
2025 WL 3157839, at *4–8 (D. Minn. Nov. 12, 2025); Santos M.C. v. Olson, No. 25-cv-
4264 (PJS/DJF), 2025 WL 3281787, at *2–3 (D. Minn. Nov. 25, 2025). As of this writing,
two federal courts of appeals have ruled on the question, one reaching and one rejecting
this conclusion. See Castañon-Nava v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 161 F.4th 1048, 1062
(7th Cir. 2025) (concluding that respondent was not likely to prevail on the merits that
3 	To the extent Respondents challenge this Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction to
consider Alberto’s Petition, consistent with previous rulings on this issue, I find that the
jurisdiction-stripping provisions of § 1252(a)(5), (b)(9), and (g) do not apply to “the narrow
question whether a noncitizen is subject to discretionary detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226
or mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2).” 	Fernando F.P.D. v. Brott, No. 25-cv-4455
(ECT/ECW), 2025 WL 3675151, at *2 (D. Minn. Dec. 17, 2025) (citing cases).
CASE 0:26-cv-01228-ECT-ECW Doc. 7 Filed 02/13/26 Page 3 of 6

4
petitioner was subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)); Buenrostro-Mendez v.
Bondi, --- F.4th ---, Nos. 25-20496, 25-40701, 2026 WL 323330, at *1 (5th Cir. Feb. 6,
2026) (finding petitioner was subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)). Alberto
has lived in the United States for approximately seven years, Pet. ¶ 13, and I find his
detention falls under § 1226(a) and not § 1225(b)(2).4
The final issue is the appropriate remedy. 	Section 1226 provides that “[o]n a
warrant issued by the Attorney General, an alien may be arrested and detained.”
8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) (emphasis added). 	“Issuance of a warrant is a necessary condition to
justify 	discretionary 	detention 	under 	section 	1226(a).” 	Chogllo 	Chafla 	v. 	Scott,
804 F. Supp. 3d 247, 264 (D. Me. 2025), appeal filed (Nov. 6, 2025). 	“[I]t follows that
absent a warrant a noncitizen may not be arrested and detained under section 1226(a).” Id.
(emphasis in original); accord Chiliquinga Yumbillo v. Stamper, No. 2:25-cv-00479, 2025
WL 2783642, at *5 (D. Me. Sep. 30, 2025); J.A.C.P. v. Wofford, No. 1:25-cv-01354, 2025
WL 3013328, at *8 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 27, 2025); see also Florida v. United States, 660 F.
Supp. 3d 1239, 1276 (N.D. Fla. 2023) (stating § 1226 “is not even triggered unless an arrest
warrant is issued” and that “[i]f [an] alien has not been arrested on a warrant, then the
subsequent provisions giving the Attorney General discretion to detain or release ‘the
arrested alien’ are likewise not triggered”), appeal dismissed, 2023 WL 5212561 (11th Cir.
July 11, 2023). 	Here, Alberto argues that he was arrested without a warrant. See Pet. ¶ 15.
4 	Respondents do not argue that Alberto is subject to mandatory detention pursuant to
8 U.S.C. § 1226(c), or that any other statutory scheme other than that raised in the Petition
would apply to Alberto’s detention. See ECF No. 5.
CASE 0:26-cv-01228-ECT-ECW Doc. 7 Filed 02/13/26 Page 4 of 6

5
Respondents have not produced a warrant, nor have they advanced any specific argument
that justifies Alberto’s detention under § 1226(a) without a warrant. See ECF No. 5 at 11–
12. Specifically, Respondents do not indicate why any of 8 U.S.C. § 1357’s exceptions to
the warrant requirement would apply to Alberto. See id. Nor do Respondents explain how
the cases they cite apply in the face of 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), which requires “a warrant issued
by the Attorney General” as a predicate to discretionary detention under § 1226(a). See id.
at 12 (first citing INS v. Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U.S. 1032, 1039 (1984); and then citing Arias
v. Rogers, 676 F.2d 1139, 1142 (7th Cir. 1982)).
“[R]elease is an available and appropriate remedy” for “detention that lacks a lawful
predicate.” 	Order on Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus at 6, Vedat C. v. Bondi, No.
25-cv-4642 (JWB/DTS) (D. Minn. Dec. 19, 2025), ECF No. 9 (citing Munaf v. Geren,
553 U.S. 674, 693 (2008)). 	“Where the record shows Respondents have not identified a
valid statutory basis for detention in the first place, the remedy is not to supply one through
further proceedings.” 	Id.; see Chogllo Chafla, 804 F. Supp. 3d at 264 (“Since the
Government did not comply with the plain language of section 1226(a), [petitioners’]
immediate release is justified.”); J.A.C.P., 2025 WL 3013328, at *8 (same); Chiliquinga
Yumbillo, 2025 WL 2783642, at *5 (reaching same conclusion); see also Munaf, 553 U.S.
at 693 (“Habeas is at its core a remedy for unlawful executive detention. The typical
remedy for such detention is, of course, release.” (citation modified)).5
5 	The resolution of this statutory-interpretation question in Alberto’s favor makes it
unnecessary to address the Petition’s remaining grounds.
CASE 0:26-cv-01228-ECT-ECW Doc. 7 Filed 02/13/26 Page 5 of 6

6
ORDER
Therefore, based on the foregoing, and on all the files, records, and proceedings
herein, IT IS ORDERED THAT Petitioner Alberto N.’s Verified Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus [ECF No. 1] is GRANTED as follows:
1. 	Petitioner is not subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2),
and is instead subject to detention, if at all, pursuant to the discretionary provisions of
8 U.S.C. § 1226.
2. 	Respondents shall release Petitioner from custody as follows:
a. 	If Petitioner remains detained in Minnesota, Respondents shall release
Petitioner from custody as soon as practicable, but not later than 48 hours after entry of this
Order.
b. 	If Petitioner has been moved outside of Minnesota, as soon as
practicable, but not later than 72 hours after entry of this Order, Respondents shall return
Petitioner to Minnesota and then release Petitioner from custody.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: February 13, 2026, at 2:00 p.m. 	s/ Eric C. Tostrud
Eric C. Tostrud
United States District Court
CASE 0:26-cv-01228-ECT-ECW Doc. 7 Filed 02/13/26 Page 6 of 6