Estephanny P. v. Bondi
Estephanny P. v. Pamela Bondi, Attorney General; Kristi Noem, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Department of Homeland Security; Todd M. Lyons, Acting Director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Immigration and Customs Enforcement; and David Easterwood, Acting Director, St. Paul Field Office, Immigration and Customs Enforcement
- Eric Tostrud
- 0:26-cv-00198
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate.
In Estephanny P. v. Bondi, Judge Tostrud granted Estephanny’s petition, ruling her refugee status entitled her to release from immigration custody within 48 hours.
Estephanny P., who was ordered released from custody, and the named government and immigration respondents, who were ordered to carry out the release.
What happened
In Estephanny P. v. Bondi, Estephanny P., a Venezuelan citizen admitted to the United States as a refugee in 2023, challenged her detention in Minnesota. She argued that her refugee status entitled her to immediate release.
The government asked the court to deny the petition and relied on arguments made in another detention case. But the court found that case did not address the refugee-status issue presented here. The government did not respond to Estephanny’s arguments about her refugee status.
Judge Eric C. Tostrud granted the petition and ordered the respondents to release Estephanny immediately, and no later than 48 hours after the order was entered.
The detailed version
- Estephanny P. v. Bondi · No. 0:26-cv-00198
- Eric Tostrud
- Jan. 15, 2026
Background
Estephanny P. filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, a court action challenging unlawful custody. The opinion states that she is a Venezuelan citizen who was admitted to the United States as a refugee on September 12, 2023. Respondents detained her in Minnesota on January 12, 2026.
Estephanny argued that her detention violated her rights to substantive and procedural due process under the Fifth Amendment, the Immigration and Nationality Act and its regulations, the Administrative Procedure Act, and the Accardi doctrine. She asserted that her refugee status entitled her to immediate release. She expressly did not seek a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a).
The parties’ positions
The respondents filed a one-paragraph response. They stated that the petition sought a bond hearing and that similar legal and factual issues were being reviewed by the Eighth Circuit in another case. They incorporated the government’s arguments from that case, preserved them for a possible appeal, and asked the court to deny Estephanny’s petition.
The court found that the other case was not applicable because it concerned a petitioner’s entitlement to a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1225 and 1226, and that petitioner did not claim refugee status. The court also found that the respondents did not respond to Estephanny’s arguments concerning her refugee status and therefore waived any challenge to those arguments.
Ruling
The court granted Estephanny P.’s verified petition for a writ of habeas corpus. It ordered the respondents to release her from custody immediately, but no later than 48 hours after the order’s entry. The court directed that judgment be entered accordingly.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.