Fausto O.I. v. Noem

Background

Fausto O.I. entered the United States without inspection in or around November 2023 and was arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers. He was charged under the Immigration and Nationality Act provision concerning a noncitizen present in the United States who had not been admitted or paroled. Officials released him on December 1, 2023, subject to conditions. His application for asylum and withholding of removal remained pending, and he had a valid work permit based on that application.

Officials arrested Fausto in Minnesota on January 9, 2026, and transferred him to detention facilities in Texas and New Mexico. He filed this petition through counsel on January 30, 2026. He argued that officials were unlawfully detaining him under 8 U.S.C. § 1225 without the possibility of a bond hearing and that his arrest and detention were unsupported by a warrant. He requested immediate release or, alternatively, a bond hearing.

Forum

Respondents argued that the case should be transferred to the Western District of Texas because Fausto was detained there and was not detained in Minnesota when the petition was filed. The court rejected that argument. It explained that although habeas petitions ordinarily are filed where the petitioner is detained and name the immediate custodian, an exception applies when government-controlled transfers make the custodian and place of detention unknown or uncertain.

The court found that exception applicable because Fausto was arrested in Minnesota, rapidly transferred between facilities at the government’s direction, and apparently moved without proper notice to him or his counsel. It concluded that the District of Minnesota remained a proper forum and that transferring the case would risk delaying review of the legality of his detention.

Detention ruling

A petition for a writ of habeas corpus is a procedure used to challenge unlawful custody. The court held that Fausto was not subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b). That provision applies to certain noncitizens seeking admission, but the court concluded that Fausto, who had been living in the United States for more than two years when arrested, was not a person actively seeking admission at that time. The court also concluded that his asylum application and the petition for an alien relative filed on his behalf did not change that result.

The court further found that Respondents had not identified a valid statutory basis for Fausto’s arrest or current detention. It explained that detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226 depends on an arrest warrant and that Respondents had offered no evidence that a warrant supported Fausto’s arrest or detention. Because the detention lacked a lawful basis, the court concluded that release—not merely a bond hearing—was the appropriate remedy.

Recommended relief

Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois recommended that the petition be granted; that Respondents return Fausto to Minnesota for immediate release; that Respondents release him without imposing conditions greater than those in his December 1, 2023, release order; and that Respondents confirm his release within 48 hours after any district court order adopting the recommendation. The recommendation also would preclude Respondents from detaining Fausto again under the statutory theory rejected in this proceeding unless circumstances materially changed.

The recommendation additionally states that Respondents failed to comply with Judge Michael J. Davis’s January 30, 2026, order requiring them to return Fausto to Minnesota. It recommends ordering Respondents to show cause why they should not be held in civil contempt for that failure.

Objections and status

The report and recommendation states that it is not a final order or judgment and is not directly appealable to the Eighth Circuit. It shortens the objection period to two days and the response period to one day. The provided opinion text does not show whether the district court adopted the recommendations.