Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
ALEX P.G.T.,
Petitioner,
v.
PAMELA BONDI, United States Attorney
General;
U.S. 	DEPARTMENT 	OF 	HOMELAND
SECURITY;
TODD 	M. 	LYONS, 	Acting 	Director,
Immigration and Customs Enforcement;
and
DAVID EASTERWOOD, Acting Director, St.
Paul Field Office Immigration and Customs
Enforcement,
Respondents.
Civil No. 26-1892 (JRT/DJF)
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
GRANTING PETITION FOR WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS
Emily Asp and Kelly Maxwell, STINSON LLP, 50 South Sixth Street, Suite
2600, Minneapolis, MN 55402, for Petitioner.
David W. Fuller and Trevor Brown, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE,
300 	South 	Fourth 	Street, 	Suite 	600, 	Minneapolis, 	MN 	55415 	for
Respondents.
Petitioner Alex P.G.T. was detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
(“ICE”) officials on January 8, 2026. (Verified Pet. for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Pet.”) ¶ 12,
March 16, 2026, Docket No. 1.) On March 16, 2026, Petitioner filed a petition for a writ
CASE 0:26-cv-01892-JRT-DJF Doc. 8 Filed 03/24/26 Page 1 of 5

- 2 -
of habeas corpus, challenging the lawfulness of his detention. (Id.) 	Because the Court
concludes that it has jurisdiction and Petitioner is being detained unlawfully, the Court
will grant the petition and order Petitioner’s immediate release.
DISCUSSION
Petitioner Alex P.G.T. is a resident of Columbia Heights, Minnesota. 	(Pet. ¶ 12.)
The Petition states that Petitioner is a citizen of Ecuador (id.); Respondents indicate that
Petitioner is a citizen of Spain and a national of Ecuador (Decl. of William J. Robinson
(“Robinson Decl.”) ¶ 4, March 19, 2026, Docket No. 5). Petitioner has lived in the United
States since approximately 2015, and he resides with his mother and younger sister. (Pet.
¶¶ 12, 17)
On or around January 8, 2026, Petitioner was arrested without a warrant and
detained. (Id. ¶ 23.) Petitioner was transferred out of Minnesota less than 24 hours after
his arrest. 	(Decl. of Evony Ka Vang (“Vang Decl.”) ¶ 4, Mar. 20, 2026, Docket No. 7.)
Petitioner was detained first in El Paso, Texas, then in Natchez, Mississippi. 	(Robinson
Decl. ¶¶ 6–7.) Petitioner’s habeas petition was filed on March 16, 2026, while he was in
Mississippi. 	(See Pet. ¶ 12.) 	On March 19, 2026, Petitioner was informed that he was
being transferred again. 	(Vang Decl. ¶ 18.) 	Respondents have not represented to the
Court that Petitioner has been returned to Minnesota, as directed in the Court’s previous
Order. (March 17, 2026, Docket No. 3.)
CASE 0:26-cv-01892-JRT-DJF Doc. 8 Filed 03/24/26 Page 2 of 5

- 3 -
Respondents argue that the Court should either dismiss this petition for improper
venue or transfer it to Mississippi. (See generally Federal Resp’ts’ Resp., March 19, 2026,
Docket No. 4.) The Court disagrees. In his time in Respondents’ custody, Petitioner has
been detained in at least three separate facilities in three different states. 	The Court
refuses 	to 	allow 	Respondents 	to 	require 	Petitioners’ 	counsel 	to 	determine 	the
appropriate location to file their habeas petition while Respondents move Petitioner
around. To do so would be to condone a ghoulish version of Whac-A-Mole. The District
of Minnesota—where Petitioner resides, was arrested and detained, and was his last
known permanent location—is the proper forum for Petitioner to challenge his detention
as unlawful. See Gabriel A.H.L. v. Noem, CV 26-860 (JRT/EMB), 2026 WL 323106, at *2 (D.
Minn. Feb. 6, 2026).
Respondents spend only a paragraph of their eight-page memorandum addressing
the merits of Petitioner’s habeas petition. 	Respondents seem to rely on 8 U.S.C.
§ 1225(b)(2) to justify Petitioner’s detention. The Court rejects that justification. To the
extent Respondents rely on § 1225(b)(2), the Court concludes that the legal issues
presented by Petitioner’s habeas petition are 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.
CASE 0:26-cv-01892-JRT-DJF Doc. 8 Filed 03/24/26 Page 3 of 5

- 4 -
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,
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 Alex P.G.T.’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 Alex P.G.T.’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.
CASE 0:26-cv-01892-JRT-DJF Doc. 8 Filed 03/24/26 Page 4 of 5

- 5 -
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 potentially severe weather conditions in Minnesota, Respondents
are ORDERED to coordinate with Petitioner’s counsel to ensure that upon
Petitioner’s release, they are not left outside in inclement weather. 	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 12:00 p.m. on March 27,
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: March 24, 2026 	_____/s/ John R. Tunheim ____
at Minneapolis, Minnesota. 	JOHN R. TUNHEIM
United States District Judge
CASE 0:26-cv-01892-JRT-DJF Doc. 8 Filed 03/24/26 Page 5 of 5