Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Angel E.G.S.,
Petitioner,
v.
Pamela Bondi, Attorney General, United
States Department of Justice; Kristi
Noem, Secretary, U.S. Department of
Homeland Security; and Todd M. Lyons,
Acting Director of Immigration and
Customs Enforcement,
Respondents.
Civil No. 26-1668 (DWF/SGE)
MEMORANDUM
OPINION AND ORDER
INTRODUCTION
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Angel E.G.S.’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 Ecuador and resident of Minneapolis, Minnesota. (Doc.
No. 1 ¶¶ 2, 25.) He has lived in the United States since June 2024 with his partner and
three children. (Id. ¶¶ 2, 25, 27.) After entering without inspection, he was released on
his own recognizance that same day. (Id. ¶¶ 2, 25.) Petitioner has a pending asylum
application and a work permit. (Id. ¶¶ 2, 26-27.) Petitioner has no criminal history. (Id.
CASE 0:26-cv-01668-DWF-SGE Doc. 7 Filed 03/04/26 Page 1 of 6

2
¶ 3.) On January 7, 2026, Petitioner was arrested and detained by U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) without a warrant on his way home from work. (Id. ¶¶ 4,
28.) He was initially detained in Minnesota, then transferred at some point to a detention
center in Pearsall, Texas. (Id. ¶¶ 5, 28.) Petitioner is currently being transferred back to
Minnesota.1 (Doc. No. 5 at 2.)
Petitioner filed the Petition on February 27, 2026. (Doc. No. 1 at 19.) He claims
that his detention is unlawful under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, the
Immigration and Nationality Act, the Fourth Amendment, and federal regulations. (Id.
¶¶ 31-62.) Petitioner asks the Court to order his immediate release or a bond hearing
under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). (Id. at 18-19.) Respondents timely filed a form response.
(Doc. No. 5.)
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
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 are returning Petitioner
to Minnesota as ordered by the Court on February 27, 2026 (see id.; Doc. No. 3).
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-01668-DWF-SGE Doc. 7 Filed 03/04/26 Page 2 of 6

3
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 almost two years and has a pending asylum application and a work permit. See
Jennings v. 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).
CASE 0:26-cv-01668-DWF-SGE Doc. 7 Filed 03/04/26 Page 3 of 6

4
Further, it seems that Petitioner was previously released on his own recognizance
under § 1226. Respondents fail to address the impact of his prior release under § 1226.
Respondents do not show that Petitioner’s order for release on recognizance was revoked
or that there was any change in circumstances that would warrant its revocation.
Sections 1225 and 1226 are meant to address different populations, they are not
interchangeable. See Adriana M.Y.M. v. Easterwood, No. 26-cv-213, 2026 WL 184721,
at *4 (D. Minn. Jan. 24, 2026) (citing Jennings, 583 U.S. at 285-90).
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:
CASE 0:26-cv-01668-DWF-SGE Doc. 7 Filed 03/04/26 Page 4 of 6

5
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.
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 new conditions on release, including but not limited to
requiring Petitioner to sign an “Order of Release on Recognizance” or requiring
Petitioner to enroll in 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. Petitioner’s counsel is Joshua Rissman who can be
reached at 612-333-8844.
CASE 0:26-cv-01668-DWF-SGE Doc. 7 Filed 03/04/26 Page 5 of 6

6
7. 	Respondents are ENJOINED from re-detaining Petitioner under this same
statutory theory, absent materially changed circumstances.
8. 	Within thirty (30) days of final judgment in this action, Petitioner may
move to recover attorneys’ fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: March 4, 2026 	s/Donovan W. Frank
DONOVAN W. FRANK
United States District Judge
CASE 0:26-cv-01668-DWF-SGE Doc. 7 Filed 03/04/26 Page 6 of 6