Shueb A.A. v. Noem
Shueb A.A. v. Kristi Noem, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Department of Homeland Security, in her official capacity, et al.
- Michael Davis
- 0:26-cv-01127
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate.
In Shueb A.A. v. Noem, Magistrate Judge Foster recommends granting the government's motion in part and transferring the case to the Western District of Oklahoma because the petitioner was detained there, not in Minnesota.
Immigrants detained by ICE in one location who file habeas petitions (legal challenges to their detention) in a different federal court district, particularly those with pending asylum applications who are detained far from where they previously lived or were originally processed.
What happened
In Shueb A.A. v. Noem (Case No. 26-cv-1127), a Somali asylum seeker named Shueb A.A. filed a petition in the District of Minnesota asking a federal court to order his release from immigration detention or, alternatively, to give him a bond hearing. He had a pending asylum application, no criminal history, and had never missed an immigration hearing before Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) arrested him on January 12, 2026. He has been held at a detention facility in Cushing, Oklahoma ever since.
The government moved to dismiss the petition or transfer the case to Oklahoma, arguing that Shueb was arrested and detained in Oklahoma, not Minnesota. As a general rule, a petition seeking release from government custody must be filed in the district where the person is being held. There is a narrow exception when someone is arrested in one place and quickly moved to another without notice — intended to stop the government from moving detainees to limit their access to lawyers or to manipulate which court hears their case. The government produced documents showing the arrest warrant was served in Tulsa, Oklahoma and that Shueb was immediately placed in the Oklahoma facility. Shueb ultimately conceded the case should be transferred.
Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster issued a Report and Recommendation on February 17, 2026, concluding that the Minnesota court lacks jurisdiction over the petition and recommending that the motion be granted in part, with the case transferred to the Western District of Oklahoma. This is a recommendation, not a final order — either party may file written objections within 14 days, and a district judge will have the final say.
The detailed version
- Shueb A.A. v. Noem · No. 0:26-cv-01127
- Michael Davis
- Feb. 17, 2026
Background
Shueb A.A. is a citizen of Somalia who entered the United States to seek asylum and was first detained on or about December 8, 2022. Immigration officials released him on his own recognizance (meaning without posting money bail, on his promise to appear) under 8 U.S.C. § 1226. He timely filed an asylum application on April 17, 2023, which remained pending at the time of this ruling. The federal government granted him a work permit. He had no criminal history and had never missed an immigration hearing.
Despite this compliance record and his pending asylum application, ICE arrested Shueb on January 12, 2026, and he has been held at the Cimarron Detention Facility in Cushing, Oklahoma since that time. On February 6, 2026, Shueb filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus — a legal action to challenge the lawfulness of his imprisonment — in the District of Minnesota, seeking either immediate release or a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226.
The Motion
Respondents Kristi Noem (Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security), Todd M. Lyons, and David Easterwood moved to dismiss the petition or, alternatively, transfer it to the Western District of Oklahoma. Their argument was jurisdictional: Shueb was arrested and has been detained in Oklahoma, not Minnesota, so the Minnesota court lacks the power to hear the case.
Legal Standard: District of Confinement Rule
Under established Supreme Court precedent, Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 443 (2004), a habeas petition ordinarily must be filed in the federal district where the petitioner is actually confined. This rule is designed to prevent forum shopping — that is, a party strategically choosing a more favorable court.
A recognized exception exists when the government arrests someone in one district and then swiftly transfers them to another district without notice, in a way that could itself constitute forum shopping by the government or could cut off the petitioner's access to counsel. In that scenario, the court in the district of initial arrest may retain jurisdiction. The magistrate judge cited Justice Kennedy's concurrence in Padilla, the Eighth Circuit district court's own prior decision in Tah L. v. Trump, the Second Circuit's decision in Ozturk v. Hyde, and the First Circuit's decision in Vasquez v. Reno in support of this exception.
Application to This Case
Shueb's petition initially asserted he was arrested in Minnesota. Respondents disputed this, producing two key documents: (1) an I-830 "Notice to EOIR: Alien Address" — a form notifying the Executive Office of Immigration Review in Minnesota that ICE detained Shueb on January 12, 2026 and immediately placed him at the Cimarron Correctional Facility in Cushing, Oklahoma; and (2) an administrative arrest warrant showing it was served on January 12, 2026 in Tulsa, Oklahoma.
Faced with this evidence, Shueb conceded that the case should be transferred to Oklahoma. The exception for swift, unnoticed transfers therefore did not apply, because the record showed Shueb was arrested in Oklahoma — not in Minnesota — and there was no basis for Minnesota to retain jurisdiction.
Disposition
Magistrate Judge Foster concluded that the District of Minnesota lacks jurisdiction over the petition and issued a Report and Recommendation with two components:
1. That the Motion to Dismiss or Transfer be granted in part. 2. That the Clerk of Court be directed to transfer the case to the Western District of Oklahoma.
The court did not dismiss the petition; it recommended transfer, leaving Shueb's underlying claims intact for consideration in the proper venue.
Procedural Posture and Next Steps
This document is a Report and Recommendation from a magistrate judge (a judicial officer who assists the district court), not a final order. It is not directly appealable to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. Either party may file written objections within 14 days of being served a copy, and may respond to the other side's objections within 14 days after that. A district judge will then review the recommendation and issue a final ruling.
Note on Parties
The opinion notes that the motion listed Pamela Bondi as a movant, but she is not a party to this suit.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.