Fausto O.I. v. Kristi Noem, et al.

Summary

This Report and Recommendation addresses a habeas petition challenging the mandatory detention of an Ecuadorian noncitizen under 8 U.S.C. § 1225 without a bond hearing. The magistrate judge recommends granting the petition, ordering release within forty-eight hours of any adopting order, and requiring respondents to show cause for their alleged failure to comply with an earlier order.

Holdings

1. The District of Minnesota remained a proper forum because respondents' rapid, government-controlled transfers created uncertainty about petitioner's immediate custodian and place of confinement and should not defeat timely judicial review.
2. Petitioner was not an alien seeking admission subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2) because he had entered the United States and resided there for more than two years; his pending asylum application and family-based petition did not change that conclusion.
3. Absent a warrant, respondents could not arrest or detain petitioner under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a).
4. Immediate release, rather than a bond hearing, was the appropriate remedy because respondents failed to identify any lawful statutory predicate for petitioner's detention.
5. The record supported requiring respondents to show cause why they should not be held in civil contempt for failing to return petitioner to Minnesota as ordered.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the District of Minnesota was a proper forum for the habeas petition despite petitioner's transfer from Minnesota to detention facilities in Texas and New Mexico.
2. Whether a noncitizen who entered the United States without inspection and had resided in the country for more than two years was subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) as an alien seeking admission.
3. Whether respondents could detain petitioner under 8 U.S.C. § 1226 without producing a warrant.
4. Whether petitioner was entitled to immediate release rather than merely a bond hearing.
5. Whether respondents should be required to show cause why they should not be held in civil contempt for failing to comply with the district judge's January 30, 2026, order.

Disposition

other