Alba D.H.R. v. Bondi

Background

Alba D.H.R. filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, a court petition challenging unlawful detention. The opinion states that she is a citizen of Nicaragua and a resident of Minnesota, has lived in the United States since May 2022, has an infant child, has strong Minnesota community ties, and has no criminal record. She has a pending asylum application appeal before the Board of Immigration Appeals.

The opinion states that masked individuals arrested Alba D.H.R. on January 15, 2026, while she was a passenger in a Lyft. The driver was also arrested. The record did not clearly show her current location.

Alba D.H.R. filed her petition on February 8, 2026. She argued that her detention violated the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, the Immigration and Nationality Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act. The court separately ordered that she not be moved from the District of Minnesota while the case was pending and required the respondents to answer by February 11, 2026. The respondents filed their response late.

Court’s analysis

The court explained that federal law allows a district court to provide habeas relief when a person is detained in violation of the Constitution or federal law, including challenges to immigration detention. The petitioner had the burden of proving unlawful detention by a preponderance of the evidence, meaning that the evidence had to show that the claim was more likely true than not.

The respondents relied on 8 U.S.C. § 1231 to justify the detention and submitted an immigration judge’s May 14, 2025 decision denying Alba D.H.R.’s asylum application. Alba D.H.R. argued that her appeal remained pending before the Board of Immigration Appeals, so she did not yet have a final removal order.

The court agreed with Alba D.H.R. It held that the May 14 decision was not a final removal order while her appeal remained pending. Because § 1231 authorizes detention after a removal order becomes administratively final, that statute was not a proper basis for her detention. The respondents offered no other basis for detention. The court therefore found the detention unlawful.

Order and disposition

The court GRANTED Alba D.H.R.’s petition; DECLARED that her current detention was unlawful under the Constitution and federal laws; and ORDERED the respondents to release her immediately.

The release had to occur in Minnesota, with her personal documents and belongings, including listed items such as her driver’s license, passport, other immigration documents, and cell phone. The respondents could not impose release conditions, require her to sign an order releasing her on her promise to appear, require participation in an alternatives-to-detention program, use tracking devices or a tracking application, or withhold the clothing and outerwear she had when detained unless providing other proper winter attire. The respondents also had to give her counsel reasonable advance notice so counsel could arrange a safe release.

The court enjoined the respondents from detaining Alba D.H.R. again under the same statutory theory unless circumstances materially changed. The respondents had to provide a status update confirming her release within three days of the order. The court did not impose sanctions at that time over the respondents’ response, but said it was considering the issue and might order further briefing. The order also allowed Alba D.H.R. to move for attorneys’ fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act within 30 days after final judgment.