Luis S.I. v. Easterwood
- Michael Davis
- 0:26-cv-00533
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 4
Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate.
In Luis S.I. v. Easterwood, Judge Schultz recommended granting habeas relief, release, and a hearing before deferred-action revocation.
Luis S.I., who seeks release from immigration detention and protection against revocation of his deferred-action status, and the Government, which would be required to release him, report on his release, and provide a hearing before revoking that status if the recommendation is adopted.
What happened
Luis S.I. v. David Easterwood, et al. concerns Luis S.I.’s challenge to his immigration detention after he received deferred action connected to a pending U-visa process. He argued that the Government unlawfully ended or disregarded that status and detained him, violating federal administrative law and due process protections.
The Government mainly argued that another detention law authorized Luis S.I.’s custody. The court found that response did not address the central deferred-action issues and that the Government’s failure to respond to the due-process claim waived its challenge. Because that issue resolved the petition, the court did not address Luis S.I.’s administrative-law claims.
Judge Schultz recommended granting the habeas petition, ordering Luis S.I.’s release within 48 hours after a court order granting the petition, and requiring the Government to report whether he was released. He also recommended barring revocation of Luis S.I.’s deferred action until the Government provides notice and an opportunity to be heard. The recommendation is not a final order, and the parties may object.
The detailed version
- Luis S.I. v. Easterwood · No. 0:26-cv-00533
- Michael Davis
- Jan. 28, 2026
Background
Luis S.I. is described as a 38-year-old Mexican citizen who has lived in the United States since 2021. Before his detention, he lived with his wife and two daughters in Saint Paul, Minnesota. After applying for a U-visa certification, he received a favorable preliminary determination from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services on May 16, 2025. That determination gave him work authorization and deferred action for four years. The opinion states that he had no criminal history requiring mandatory detention or supporting revocation of deferred action, and that nothing in the record showed that the agency had revoked it.
Department of Homeland Security agents arrested Luis S.I. on January 2, 2026, in the parking lot of his apartment building. He challenged his detention under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, the federal statute that allows a person to challenge unlawful custody.
Claims and the Government’s Response
Luis S.I. asserted four claims:
- He argued that 2025 guidance from Immigration and Customs Enforcement rescinding protections for noncitizens with pending U-visa petitions was arbitrary and unlawful under the Administrative Procedure Act.
- He argued that the Government’s practice of ending deferred action by fiat violated the Administrative Procedure Act.
- He argued that revocation of his deferred action violated the Accardi doctrine, which generally requires an agency to follow its own governing rules and procedures.
- He argued that detaining him despite the prior grant of deferred action violated his due-process rights under the Fifth Amendment.
The Government focused primarily on whether 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) authorized Luis S.I.’s detention. The court stated that this argument did not address the central question of whether, and under what statutory authority, Luis S.I. could be detained while he had validly been granted deferred action. The Government briefly argued that administrative-law claims did not belong in a habeas case, but it did not cite authority. It did not respond to the procedural due-process claim or otherwise address Luis S.I.’s deferred-action arguments.
Analysis
The court concluded that the Government’s failure to respond to Luis S.I.’s deferred-action arguments waived its challenge. It also found persuasive another decision from the District of Minnesota involving an identical procedural-due-process claim. That decision reasoned that, when the record contained no factual allegations showing that the Government had revoked deferred action, there was no basis for detention.
The court therefore recommended granting Luis S.I.’s habeas petition. It explained that resolving the detention question in Luis S.I.’s favor made it unnecessary to decide his Administrative Procedure Act claims.
Recommended Disposition
The Report and Recommendation proposes that:
- Luis S.I.’s habeas petition be granted; - the Government release him as soon as practicable, and no later than 48 hours after an order granting the petition; - the Government report to the court within 48 hours of such an order whether Luis S.I. had been released; and - the Government be enjoined from revoking Luis S.I.’s deferred-action status until it provides a pre-revocation hearing with notice and an opportunity for him to be heard.
This document is a magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation, not a final order or judgment of the District Court. It is not directly appealable to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The parties may file specific written objections under the deadlines described in the opinion.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.