Emily A.N.V. v. Blanche

Background

Emily A.N.V. filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging her immigration detention. The petition sought relief from custody based on arguments that her warrantless arrest and subsequent detention were unlawful. Emily had entered the United States around May 2024 after fleeing persecution in Venezuela. Immigration authorities found that she had a credible fear of returning to Venezuela, and she was pursuing protection-based relief, including asylum. Her claim was pending appeal in the immigration-court system.

Emily had been instructed to attend check-in appointments with immigration authorities every four months and had not missed one. She had no criminal history. On February 26, 2026, immigration agents went to arrest her partner, Orlando, whom they believed lacked lawful immigration status. Emily was sitting in the passenger seat of Orlando’s car. The agents did not know Emily’s name or immigration status, were not targeting her, and had no arrest warrant for her.

The agents surrounded the vehicle, ordered Emily to get out, broke the driver-side window, pulled Emily from the car, handcuffed her, and took her to a law-enforcement vehicle. Emily testified that she did not initially understand the order because the window was closed and agents were shouting different instructions. The report found that she tried to comply with a later order but was interrupted when agents pulled her from the car. During the arrest, one of her fingernails was torn off. She was not wearing a coat or shoes, and she slipped on the icy parking lot.

Legal standard and issues

A petition under § 2241 may provide relief when a person proves that she is in custody in violation of the Constitution, federal law, or a treaty. The parties agreed that Emily was initially arrested without a warrant. The central question was whether the warrantless arrest complied with 8 U.S.C. § 1357.

The government relied on two possible statutory grounds. Under § 1357(a)(5)(A), an immigration agent may make a warrantless arrest when the agent has probable cause to believe the person committed a federal offense in the agent’s presence. Under § 1357(a)(2), an agent may make a warrantless arrest when the agent reasonably believes that the person is unlawfully present and is likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained. The government had the burden of showing that the statutory requirements were met.

Analysis

The report rejected the government’s argument that Emily could be arrested for harboring, concealing, or shielding Orlando from detention. The record did not show that Emily knew or recklessly disregarded that Orlando was unlawfully present, that agents explained why Orlando was being detained, or that Emily tried to hide or protect him. An agent also testified that he did not see Emily commit a crime.

The report also rejected the government’s reliance on § 1357(a)(2). Emily’s presence in the car with Orlando did not establish that she was unlawfully present. Her statement that she was from Venezuela likewise did not establish unlawful presence. The agents did not ask about her immigration status, and they did not retrieve the identification Emily said was in the car before taking her away. The record showed that she had passed a credible-fear interview, had sought relief before an immigration judge, and had been attending immigration check-ins.

The report further found that the government did not establish that Emily was likely to escape before a warrant could be obtained. The government’s evidence about Orlando’s conduct and the general possibility that a partner might leave after an arrest did not provide a particularized basis to conclude that Emily herself would escape. Agents did not ask where she lived, worked, or had family, and they did not investigate whether she could be located at another identifiable place. The report also found that Emily did not resist arrest: her movements were consistent with panic, pain from the injured finger, and trying to retrieve her phone on the icy ground.

Recommendation and current status

The report concluded that Emily’s warrantless arrest was unlawful under both statutory grounds. It recommended granting Emily’s petition and ordering the government to release her immediately in Minnesota, at a time and place communicated in advance to her counsel, with all her possessions. It also recommended ordering the government to file a prompt docket update confirming that the release occurred.

The report did not decide Emily’s remaining statutory or constitutional arguments because it found the arrest unlawful under the statute. The document is a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, not a final district court order or judgment. It states that the parties could file written objections by July 24, 2026, responses were due by July 28, 2026, and the recommendation was not directly appealable to the Court of Appeals.