A.A. v. Noem

Background

Petitioner Shueb A.A. is a Somali national who entered the United States to seek asylum and was initially detained on or about December 8, 2022. Immigration officials released him shortly thereafter on his own recognizance under 8 U.S.C. § 1226 (the federal statute governing detention of non-citizens during removal proceedings). He timely filed an asylum application on April 17, 2023, which remains pending. The federal government granted him a work permit. According to his petition, he has no criminal history and had never missed an immigration hearing.

Despite this record, ICE arrested Shueb on January 12, 2026. Since that date, he has been confined at the Cimarron Correctional Facility (also spelled Cimmaron in parts of the record) in Cushing, Oklahoma. On February 6, 2026, Shueb filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus — a legal mechanism asking a court to order that a detained person be released or given a hearing — in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. His petition sought either immediate release or a bond hearing pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226.

The Motion

Respondents — identified as Kristi Noem (Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security), Todd M. Lyons, and David Easterwood — moved to dismiss the petition or, in the alternative, to transfer the case to the Western District of Oklahoma. The Court notes that Pamela Bondi is named as a movant but is not a party to the suit.

Respondents argued that Shueb was arrested not in Minnesota, as Shueb had asserted in his petition, but in Oklahoma. They supported this argument with two documents: (1) an I-830 "Notice to EOIR: Alien Address" — a form notifying the Executive Office of Immigration Review that ICE had detained Shueb and was holding him in Cushing, Oklahoma — and (2) an administrative arrest warrant showing service on January 12, 2026 in Tulsa, Oklahoma.

In response, Shueb conceded that the case should be transferred to Oklahoma.

Legal Analysis

General Rule on Habeas Jurisdiction

Under the general rule established by the U.S. Supreme Court in Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 443 (2004), a habeas petition must ordinarily be filed in the district where the petitioner is confined. This rule is designed to prevent forum shopping — the practice of choosing a court based on which one is perceived as most favorable rather than which one has the proper legal connection to the case.

The "Swift Transfer" Exception

There is a recognized exception to this rule: if a petitioner is arrested in one federal district and then rapidly moved to another district without notice, the district of initial arrest may retain jurisdiction. This exception is intended to prevent the government itself from engaging in forum manipulation and to protect the petitioner's access to counsel. The Court cited Tah L. v. Trump, No. 26-cv-171 (D. Minn. Jan. 19, 2026); Ozturk v. Hyde, 136 F.4th 382, 392 (2d Cir. 2025); and Vasquez v. Reno, 233 F.3d 688, 696 (1st Cir. 2000).

Application to This Case

The Court found the exception inapplicable here because the record evidence — the I-830 form and the administrative arrest warrant — established that Shueb was arrested in Oklahoma, not in Minnesota. Since both the arrest and the continued detention occurred in Oklahoma, there is no basis for Minnesota to assert jurisdiction. Petitioner himself conceded the transfer was appropriate after reviewing the government's evidence.

Recommendation

Magistrate Judge Foster recommends: 1. That the Motion to Dismiss or Transfer be granted in part; and 2. That the Clerk of Court transfer the case to the Western District of Oklahoma.

The motion is not granted in full because the Court recommends transfer rather than dismissal.

Procedural Posture

This document is a Report and Recommendation from a magistrate judge (a judicial officer who assists the district court), not a final order from an Article III district judge. It is not directly appealable to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. Under Local Rule 72.2(b)(1), either party may file written objections within 14 days of being served a copy. The opposing party then has 14 days to respond to those objections. A district court judge will then decide whether to adopt, modify, or reject the recommendation.