Wilson T. v. Blanche

Background

Wilson T. is a native and citizen of Kenya and a lawful permanent resident of the United States. After earlier removal proceedings were terminated in 2018, the Department of Homeland Security began new removal proceedings in 2025. Those proceedings alleged that Wilson T. had been inadmissible when he adjusted his immigration status because he had willfully failed to disclose a prior arrest. An immigration judge ordered him removed, and his appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals remained pending.

On August 25, 2025, an Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer issued a Form I-200 administrative arrest warrant. ICE arrested Wilson T. on August 28 and served him with a Notice to Appear on August 29. The Notice to Appear is the document that begins removal proceedings. Wilson T. filed an amended petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his detention and requesting release.

Issues and analysis

The court rejected the respondents’ arguments that the petition should be denied because Wilson T. had not requested a bond hearing or had not properly verified the petition. It concluded that exhaustion of administrative remedies was not a barrier and that any verification defect was not jurisdictional.

The court explained that 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) allows an immigration arrest during removal proceedings based on a warrant issued at the same time as, or after, the Notice to Appear. Because the Form I-200 was issued four days before the Notice to Appear, the court concluded that it was not a valid warrant under that statute.

The court also considered the separate authority for warrantless immigration arrests under 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(2). That provision requires probable cause to believe that the person is violating immigration law and a likelihood that the person will escape before a warrant can be obtained. The court found that the stated reasons for the warrant—executing a charging document and confirming Wilson T.’s identity through biometric information—could not establish probable cause on the record because the charging document had not yet been issued and the biometric confirmation apparently could occur only after arrest. The record also did not show that ICE relied on Wilson T.’s past criminal charges or that he was likely to flee.

Recommendation and procedural posture

Judge Brisbois recommended that Wilson T.’s amended petition be GRANTED in part. The recommendation called for Wilson T.’s immediate release, confirmation of his release within 48 hours after any order adopting the recommendation, and an order precluding respondents from re-detaining him under the statutory theory rejected in this proceeding unless materially changed circumstances existed. The court did not address Wilson T.’s other arguments, including his challenge to the alleged misrepresentation during his adjustment-of-status interview.

This document is a magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation, not a final order or judgment of the District Court. The court shortened the objection period to seven days, with seven days for any response, because it concluded that the ordinary period would unnecessarily prolong Wilson T.’s detention.