Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Abdoulwahab A.,
Petitioner,
v.
Kristi Noem, Secretary, U.S. Department
of Homeland Security; Todd M. Lyons,
Acting Director, U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement; David
Easterwood, Acting Director, St. Paul
Field Office, Immigration and Customs
Enforcement; and Eric Tollefson,
Kandiyohi County Sheriff,
Respondents.
Civ. No. 26-1782 (PAM/ECW)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Abdoulwahab A.’s second Petition for
Writ of Habeas Corpus. 	(“Pet.” (Docket No. 1).) 	For the following reasons, the Court
denies the Petition.
BACKGROUND
Petitioner is a citizen of Djibouti. (Id. ¶¶ 1, 24.) On February 23, 2023, he entered
the United States without inspection by an immigration officer and was apprehended by
United States Border Patrol agents in San Ysidro, California. (Id. ¶ 3, Ex. 2 at 1.) He was
issued a Notice to Appear in immigration court and released on an Order of Release under
his own recognizance. (Id. ¶¶ 3, 30, Exs. 1, 2.) At some point, he applied for asylum and
CASE 0:26-cv-01782-PAM-ECW Doc. 10 Filed 03/13/26 Page 1 of 3

2
that application remains pending. 	(Id. ¶ 1.) 	On January 22, 2026, Respondents detained
Petitioner, and he remains in Respondents’ custody. (Id. ¶¶ 1, 24.)
On February 10, 2026, the Court denied Petitioner’s first habeas petition on the
merits, finding that that his arrest was lawful and that he is subject to mandatory detention
under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). (Civ. No. 26-565, Docket No. 11.) Petitioner subsequently
sought a custody redetermination before an immigration judge, who determined that the
court lacked authority to grant bond based on the Board of Immigration Appeal’s decision
in Matter of Yajure Hurtado, 29 I&N Dec. 216 (BIA 2025).1 	(Pet. Ex. 3.) 	This petition
followed.
DISCUSSION
In Petitioner’s second Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241,
he asks the Court to order his immediate release. 	Respondents contend that Petitioner’s
instant petition is merely a second bite at the apple, persisting in their view that his
detention is mandatory pending removal proceedings under § 1225(b)(2). Petitioner argues
that his successive petition is not a second bite at the apple, because he raises a new issue:
“the constitutional consequences of a detention regime in which no decisionmaker has
authority to evaluate whether detention is justified.” (Pet. ¶ 39.) Petitioner misapprehends
the situation. 	In considering Petitioner’s first petition, the Court determined that his
detention is justified; indeed, it is mandated by statute. The instant petition does not alter
the Court’s previous conclusions. Petitioner is not entitled to release.
1 The Court notes that the immigration judge indicated that “the [Immigration] Court has
already held a Bond hearing and DENIED [Petitioner]’s bond request.” (Pet. Ex. 3 at 3.)
CASE 0:26-cv-01782-PAM-ECW Doc. 10 Filed 03/13/26 Page 2 of 3

3
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. 	The Petition (Docket No. 1) is DENIED; and
2. 	This action is DISMISSED.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: March 13, 2026 	s/ Paul A. Magnuson
Paul A. Magnuson
United States District Court Judge
CASE 0:26-cv-01782-PAM-ECW Doc. 10 Filed 03/13/26 Page 3 of 3