Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
JULIO N.C.V.,
Petitioner,
v.
PAMELA BONDI, United States Attorney
General;
KRISTI NOEM, Secretary, U.S. Department
of Homeland Security; and
TODD 	M. 	LYONS, 	Acting 	Director,
Immigration and Customs Enforcement,
Respondents.
Civil No. 26-1451 (JRT/LIB)
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
GRANTING PETITION FOR WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS
Frances Ivy Mahoney-Mosedale, GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC, 120 South Sixth
Street, Suite 2600, Minneapolis, MN 55402, for Petitioner.
David W. Fuller, Trevor Brown, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, 300
South Fourth Street, Suite 600, Minneapolis, MN 55415 for Respondents.
Petitioner Julio N.C.V. was detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
(“ICE”) officials in Minnesota.1 On February 15, 2026, Petitioner filed a petition for writ
of habeas corpus, challenging the lawfulness of her detention. (Verified Pet. for Writ of
1 The parties disagree on when Petitioner was detained. 	Petitioner alleges he was
arrested on December 26, 2025 (Verified Pet. for Writ of Habeas Corpus ¶ 4, Feb. 15, 2026,
Docket No. 1), whereas Respondents allege that ICE’s records show he was arrested on January
26, 2025 (Resp. at 2, Feb. 18, 2026, Docket No. 4.)
CASE 0:26-cv-01451-JRT-LIB Doc. 7 Filed 02/21/26 Page 1 of 6

- 2 -
Habeas Corpus (“Pet”), Feb. 15, 2026, Docket No. 1.) Because the Court concludes that
Petitioner is being detained unlawfully, the Court will grant the petition and order
Petitioner’s immediate release.
DISCUSSION
Petitioner Julio N.C.V. is a citizen of Honduras and a resident of St. Paul, Minnesota.
(Pet. ¶ 30.) 	Petitioner applied for asylum on October 12, 2024, and his application is
pending. (Id. ¶ 31.) Petitioner has a valid work permit and works as a painter. (Id. ¶ 32.)
He was detained by ICE on his way home from work. 	(Id. ¶ 4.) 	The parties agree that
after Petitioner was detained, he was transferred to ERO El Paso Camp East Montana
Facility in El Paso, Texas. (Id. ¶ 5; Resp. at 2.) On February 17, 2026, Petition was returned
to Minnesota. (Decl. of Xiong Lee ¶ 7, Feb. 18, 2026, Docket No. 5.) After being detained,
Petitioner was served with a Notice to Appear that initiated removal proceedings against
him. (Id. ¶ 5.)
A. 	Jurisdiction and Venue
Respondents request that the Court either dismiss this case or transfer it to the
Western District of Texas (where the El Paso facility is located) because Petitioner was
located in Texas when his Petition was filed.
Generally, the proper venue for the filing of a habeas petition is the district of
confinement. Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 443 (2004). But the District of Minnesota
is the proper forum in this case for several reasons. First, Petitioner has been returned to
Minnesota (see Xiong Decl. ¶ 7) meaning that this District is now Petitioner’s district of
CASE 0:26-cv-01451-JRT-LIB Doc. 7 Filed 02/21/26 Page 2 of 6

- 3 -
confinement. Further, this habeas petition arises in the context of a concerted effort by
the government to arrest residents of this state and immediately transfer them to various
other detention locations, for an unstated purpose and unstated duration, without
notifying Petitioner’s family or counsel as to where or when they may be transferred. See
Gabriel A.H.L. v. Noem, Civ. No. 26-860, 2026 WL 323106, at *2 (D. Minn. Feb. 6, 2026).
If, as Respondents assert, Petitioner was arrested by ICE officers on January 26, 2026, he
was then transferred out of Minnesota less than 24 hours later, on January 27, 2026.
(Resp. at 2, Feb. 18, 2026, Docket No. 4 (showing detention history).) 	Nothing in the
record reflects that Respondents disclosed Petitioner’s transfer in advance or allowed for
communication with counsel prior to transfer, or whether Petitioner or Petitioner’s
counsel were given reason to believe that Petitioner would not be subject to additional
transfers.
As in other similar cases, the Court concludes that the District of Minnesota—
where Petitioner resides, was arrested and detained, was his last known permanent
location, and now his current location—is the proper forum for Petitioner to challenge his
detention as unlawful. See Jose A. v. Noem, Civ. No. 26-480, 2026 WL 172524, at *2 (D.
Minn. Jan. 22, 2026) (describing that reaching any other conclusion may “have the effect
of 	incentivizing 	forum 	shopping, 	as 	Respondents 	could 	quickly 	transfer 	detained
CASE 0:26-cv-01451-JRT-LIB Doc. 7 Filed 02/21/26 Page 3 of 6

- 4 -
individuals to a district of their choosing”); see also Jose V. v. Easterwood, Civ. No. 26-597,
2026 WL 222175, at 1 (D. Minn. Jan. 28, 2026).2
B. 	Basis of Detention
Respondents rely on 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) to justify Petitioner’s detention. 	(See
Resp. at 8.) The Court rejects that justification. To the extent Respondents rely on 8 U.S.C.
§ 1225(b)(2), Petitioner’s habeas petition is subject to the same analysis the Court
recently employed in Herrera Avila v. Bondi, Civ. No. 25-3741, 2025 WL 2976539 (D. Minn.
Oct. 21, 2025), and Romero Santuario v. Bondi, Civ. 25-4296, 2025 WL 3469577 (D. Minn,
Dec. 2, 2025). 	Section 1225(b)(2) does not authorize the mandatory detention of an
individual already present in the United States.
C. 	Remedy
The Court therefore turns to the proper remedy. Where, as here, (1) Respondents
erroneously 	assert 	that 	a 	detainee 	is 	being 	held 	pursuant 	to 	§ 	1225(b)(2) 	and
(2) Respondents have not produced a warrant, as is required to effectuate an arrest
pursuant to § 1226(a), the appropriate remedy is release from custody. See, e.g., Ahmed
M. v. Bondi, No. 25-4711, 2026 WL 25627, at *3 (D. Minn. Jan. 5, 2026); Lauro M. v. Bondi,
2 The Court further notes that Respondents seem to be engaging in exactly this type of
forum shopping. See, e.g., Angel G.S.P. v. Bondi, Civ. No. 26-1449, 2026 WL 458240, at *2 (D.
Minn. Feb. 18, 2026) (noting Petitioner was detained in Minnesota, but Respondents asked the
Court to transfer the matter to the Western District of Wisconsin arguing that jurisdiction is
proper in the district of arrest); Carrera-Sanchez v. Bondi, No. 26-1460, slip op. at 3 (D. Minn. Feb.
18, 2026) (rejecting Respondents’ request to transfer the case to the District of North Dakota
even though the district of confinement was the District of Minnesota).
CASE 0:26-cv-01451-JRT-LIB Doc. 7 Filed 02/21/26 Page 4 of 6

- 5 -
No. 26-134, 2026 WL 115022, at *3 (D. Minn. Jan. 15, 2026); cf. 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.”).
The Court will grant Julio N.C.V.’s petition for writ of habeas corpus and order that
he be released from custody.
ORDER
Based on the foregoing, and all the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED that
1. 	Petitioner Julio N.C.V.’s Verified Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Docket No. [1])
is GRANTED, as follows:
a. 	Petitioner 	is 	not 	subject 	to 	mandatory 	detention 	under 	8 	U.S.C.
§ 1225(b)(2).
b. 	If Petitioner is being detained outside of Minnesota, Respondents shall
TRANSPORT Petitioner to Minnesota and RELEASE Petitioner from custody
immediately. Petitioner’s release in Minnesota must occur no later than 48
hours after the filing of this Order.
c. 	If Petitioner is being detained in Minnesota, Respondents shall RELEASE
Petitioner from custody as soon as practicable, and no later than 48 hours
from the filing of this Order.
d. 	Given the severe weather conditions in Minnesota, Respondents are
ORDERED to coordinate with Petitioner’s counsel to ensure that upon
CASE 0:26-cv-01451-JRT-LIB Doc. 7 Filed 02/21/26 Page 5 of 6

- 6 -
Petitioner’s release, they are not left outside in dangerous cold. 	It is
preferable to release Petitioner to counsel to ensure humane treatment.
e. 	Respondents must release Petitioner with all personal effects, such as
driver’s 	license, 	passports, 	or 	immigration 	documents, 	and 	without
conditions such as location tracking devices.
f. 	Respondents are ENJOINED from re-detaining Petitioner under this same
statutory theory, absent materially changed circumstances.
g. 	Both parties shall provide the Court with a status update concerning the
status of Petitioner’s release by no later than 5:00 p.m. on February 23,
2026. 	Further, the parties shall advise the Court whether any additional
proceedings in this matter are required and submit any proposals for the
scope of further litigation.
DATED: February 21, 2026 	_____/s/ John R. Tunheim ____
at Minneapolis, Minnesota. 	JOHN R. TUNHEIM
United States District Judge
CASE 0:26-cv-01451-JRT-LIB Doc. 7 Filed 02/21/26 Page 6 of 6