Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Henry A.A.G.,
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; and David
Easterwood, Acting Director, St. Paul
Field Office Immigration and Customs
Enforcement,
Respondents.
Civil No. 26-1437 (DWF/DTS)
MEMORANDUM
OPINION AND ORDER
INTRODUCTION
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Henry A.A.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. 5.)
For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants the Petition and orders Respondents to
release Petitioner immediately.
BACKGROUND
Petitioner is a citizen of Guatemala and resident of Faribault, Minnesota. (Doc.
No. 1 ¶ 14.) He has lived in the United States since November 2015 after entering
without inspection. (Id.) Petitioner submitted an asylum application in February 2016.
(Id. ¶ 15.) That application is currently pending before the Board of Immigration
CASE 0:26-cv-01437-DWF-DTS Doc. 6 Filed 02/19/26 Page 1 of 5

2
Appeals. (Id.) He does not have a final order of removal. (Id.) U.S. Immigration &
Customs Enforcement agents arrested Petitioner on February 7, 2026, while he was
returning home after visiting a friend. (Id. ¶ 17.) Petitioner was detained at the Whipple
Federal Building at Fort Snelling in Minnesota for just under twenty-four hours. (Doc.
No. 5-1.) He was then transferred to an ERO detention center in El Paso, Texas. (Id.)
He was transferred back to Minnesota on February 15, 2026. (Id.) He was initially
processed at the Whipple Federal Building, then moved to the Kandiyohi County Jail,
where he remains in custody.1 (Id.)
Petitioner filed the Petition on February 13, 2026. (Doc. No. 1 at 16.) He claims
that his detention is unlawful under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, the
Immigration and Nationality Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act. (Id. ¶¶ 32-48.)
Petitioner asks the Court to order his immediate release or, alternatively, order
Respondents to hold a bond hearing. (Id. at 15-16.) Respondents timely filed a form
response. (Doc. No. 5.)
1 	Petitioner was in Texas when the Petition was filed. Respondents do not challenge
the Court’s jurisdiction to hear this Petition (see Doc. No. 5) and indeed have returned
Petitioner to Minnesota as ordered by the Court on February 14, 2026 (see Doc. Nos. 3,
5-1). Therefore, the issue is waived or otherwise moot. See Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542
U.S. 426, 451-52 (2004) (Kennedy, J., concurring) (explaining that “the question of the
proper location for a habeas petition is best understood as a question of personal
jurisdiction or venue” and that objections to the filing location can be waived);
Mathena v. United States, 577 F.3d 943, 946 n.3 (8th Cir. 2009) (discussing waiver of
challenges to the filing location of a habeas petition); see also Edita M.S.C. v. Noem,
No. 26-cv-650, 2026 WL 252545, at *1 (D. Minn. Jan. 30, 2026) (denying a motion to
dismiss for lack of jurisdiction because the petitioner was transferred back to Minnesota
and requiring the petitioner to refile her petition would have been a waste of judicial
resources).
CASE 0:26-cv-01437-DWF-DTS Doc. 6 Filed 02/19/26 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. 5.)
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 over ten years and has a pending asylum application. See Jennings v.
CASE 0:26-cv-01437-DWF-DTS Doc. 6 Filed 02/19/26 Page 3 of 5

4
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 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. 5). 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-01437-DWF-DTS Doc. 6 Filed 02/19/26 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 or use of a tracking application; 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 19, 2026 	s/Donovan W. Frank
DONOVAN W. FRANK
United States District Judge
CASE 0:26-cv-01437-DWF-DTS Doc. 6 Filed 02/19/26 Page 5 of 5