Marisol P.Q. v. Bondi

Background

Marisol P.Q. is identified in the opinion as a citizen of Colombia who came to the United States seeking asylum. She surrendered to immigration authorities when she entered the country on July 27, 2022, was released in early August 2022, later filed a still-pending asylum application, and received a work permit in September 2023. The opinion states that she lives in Burnsville, Minnesota, has an adopted daughter and a six-year-old grandson, works at a local shampoo factory, has no criminal record, has never been to immigration or criminal court, and is not subject to a deportation order.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers arrested Marisol on February 4, 2026, while she attended a routine immigration appointment. They told her she could be transferred to Texas as early as the next day. She filed this habeas petition the same day. A habeas petition asks a court to review whether a person’s detention is lawful. Judge Michael J. Davis then ordered the respondents to explain the detention and barred them from removing Marisol from Minnesota, ordering her return if she had already been removed.

Marisol’s attorney learned that she had already been transferred to El Paso, Texas, and sought expedited discovery. The requested information included transportation and custody records, the identities of personnel involved in the transfer, records about Marisol’s location and property, communications about her custody, and policies concerning rapid transfers and responses to habeas filings and court orders. The respondents later told the court that Marisol had been returned to Minnesota, and later asserted that she had been released, but they did not provide the documents the court ordered to support those assertions. The court therefore found that the matter was not moot at the time of the opinion.

Habeas Petition

Marisol argued that her detention was governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), which the opinion describes as requiring a warrant and providing a right to a bond hearing. The respondents argued that 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) governed instead, a provision that does not require a warrant and mandates detention in the circumstances they asserted applied.

The court agreed with Judge Davis’s earlier conclusion that people who have lived in the United States for some time and are not seeking admission are not covered by § 1225(b)(2). The court concluded that Marisol’s detention was governed by § 1226(a), not § 1225(b)(2). The court also gave an independent reason for recommending relief: the respondents provided no affidavits, declarations, exhibits, or case-specific evidence supporting any lawful basis for detaining Marisol, and they did not provide or identify a warrant.

The recommendation states that the petition should be GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. It recommends ordering the respondents to release Marisol as soon as practicable, inside Minnesota, at a safe time and place communicated in advance to counsel, and with her personal effects in the respondents’ possession. It separately states that the remainder of the petition should be DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The recommendation also addresses a possible Equal Access to Justice Act fee request, stating that any such motion must be filed within 21 days after entry of judgment if the petition is granted.

Expedited Discovery

The court granted Marisol’s motion for expedited discovery IN PART. It relied on the federal courts’ inherent power to manage cases and address conduct that abuses the judicial process. The court identified concerns about whether Marisol’s rapid removal from Minnesota was intended to affect the forum for judicial review, whether the transfer violated Judge Davis’s order, and whether the transfer limited her access to counsel.

The order directs the respondents to file records by February 17, 2026, concerning Marisol’s transportation from Minnesota to El Paso; interim stops and detention facilities; property taken from her; the names, titles, and duty stations of personnel involved in her removal and return; her custody and location; documents showing whether, when, and where she was released; and internal policies or communications about rapid transfers, transfers before judicial review or service of court orders, relocation outside Minnesota, and responses to habeas filings, stay orders, or court jurisdiction.

Procedural Status

Dulce J. Foster signed the report and recommendation and order as a United States magistrate judge. The report and recommendation was not directly appealable to the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The respondents were allowed to object to the recommendation by February 12, 2026, and Marisol could respond by February 14, 2026. The separate discovery order was also not appealable to the Eighth Circuit until the conclusion of the matter.