Javier H.O. v. Bondi

Background

Javier H.O. was detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials on February 7, 2026. He filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, a court procedure for challenging unlawful detention, the next day. The opinion states that Javier H.O. is a citizen of Mexico, has lived in the United States “since the 1990s,” and was granted “Parole in Place” by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services based on the military service of his son, who is a U.S. citizen. He was detained in Minnesota.

Legal issue

The government relied on 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) to justify Javier H.O.’s detention. The court considered whether that provision authorized mandatory detention of a person already present in the United States. The government also submitted an administrative warrant dated February 7, 2026, and argued that, if the court found the detention governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) instead, the proper remedy would be a custody redetermination hearing rather than immediate release.

Court’s reasoning

The court rejected the government’s reliance on § 1225(b)(2), concluding that the provision does not authorize mandatory detention of an individual already present in the United States. The court applied the same analysis it had used in two earlier related proceedings.

The court also concluded that the submitted warrant did not change the result. The government had not provided a declaration confirming the warrant’s validity, identifying the officials who executed the warrant or made the arrest, or explaining the warrant’s legal basis. The court noted that the I-200 form was dated the same day as the detention and appeared to show that the same officer authorized and executed the warrant. The court was persuaded by another court’s reasoning that Immigration and Customs Enforcement lacks authority to issue I-200 warrants to people encountered in the field without a notice to appear issued at the same time or earlier. The government also did not address Javier H.O.’s allegation that he had Parole in Place status, including whether that status had been revoked or whether he had received any process concerning revocation.

The court further stated that the government continued to assert that § 1225(b), rather than § 1226(a), authorized the detention. Because the government had not produced a valid warrant under § 1226(a), the court determined that release was the appropriate remedy.

Order

The court GRANTED Javier H.O.’s verified petition for a writ of habeas corpus. It ruled that he was not subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b). If he was detained outside Minnesota, the respondents were ordered to transport him to Minnesota and release him there no later than 48 hours after the order was filed. If he was detained in Minnesota, the respondents were ordered to release him as soon as practicable and no later than 48 hours after filing.

The respondents were also ordered to coordinate with Javier H.O.’s counsel so that he would not be left outside in dangerous cold, to release him with his personal effects and without location-tracking devices, and not to detain him again under the same statutory theory absent materially changed circumstances. The parties were ordered to provide a status update about his release by 5:00 p.m. on February 17, 2026, and to address whether additional proceedings were necessary.