Guadalupe O. G. v. Bondi

Background

Guadalupe O. G. is a citizen of Mexico who resides in St. Cloud, Minnesota. The opinion states that he has lived in the United States since September 2001, has four children and a stepdaughter who are U.S. citizens, and has pending applications for asylum and lawful permanent residency.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents arrested him without a warrant on January 27, 2026. ICE transferred him to El Paso, Texas, the next day. His lawyer initially believed that he remained in Minnesota because the immigration detainee locator showed him there. The lawyer learned shortly before filing the petition on January 29 that Guadalupe O. G. had been transferred to Texas.

Guadalupe O. G. filed a petition asking for immediate release or, alternatively, a hearing to determine whether he should be released on bond under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). The respondents asked the court to dismiss the petition for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, transfer it to the Western District of Texas, or deny it on the merits.

Jurisdiction and Venue

The court denied the request to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. It explained that the Supreme Court’s rules concerning the proper respondent and the district where a person is confined do not limit a federal district court’s subject-matter jurisdiction.

The court also denied the request to transfer the case. Although habeas petitions generally belong in the district where the person is confined, the court applied an exception recognized by courts when the government’s actions make it difficult for the person’s lawyer to determine where the person is being held. The court emphasized that counsel acted within a day of learning about the arrest, could not communicate with Guadalupe O. G., relied on the detainee locator, and learned of the Texas transfer only shortly before filing. The court concluded that Minnesota was the proper venue under these circumstances.

Merits

The court addressed whether 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2), which requires detention in specified circumstances, applied to Guadalupe O. G. The court followed its earlier analysis that this provision does not apply to people already in the United States who are not seeking admission, including people who entered without inspection or were previously released under 8 U.S.C. § 1226 or another statute. The court rejected the government’s request to reconsider that analysis and concluded that mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2) was not legally supported here.

The court also concluded that Guadalupe O. G.’s pending asylum application did not make detention mandatory under § 1225(b). Because the government had neither claimed nor produced an administrative warrant under § 1226 and had not suggested that Guadalupe O. G. violated conditions of a prior release, the court determined that immediate release—not merely a bond hearing—was the appropriate remedy.

Order

The court granted the petition for a writ of habeas corpus. It declared that Guadalupe O. G. was not subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) and enjoined the respondents from denying release or other relief on that basis.

The court ordered the respondents to immediately release Guadalupe O. G. in Minnesota, without conditions, and return his personal effects seized during his arrest, including immigration paperwork. The respondents were ordered to file a notice by 5:00 p.m. on February 5, 2026, certifying that he had been returned to Minnesota and released, or explaining why that had not occurred and identifying the steps being taken to accomplish it.