Esequiel P.R. v. Blanche

Background

Esequiel P.R. filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his arrest and detention and seeking immediate release. The opinion identifies him as a citizen of Mexico. He was removed from the United States to Mexico on July 1, 2019, under an expedited-removal order. He reentered the United States unlawfully in 2020 and later worked and resided in Minnesota.

On June 11, 2026, Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents questioned Esequiel during a targeted enforcement operation in Bemidji, Minnesota. According to the government, he stated that he had previously been removed and had not obtained permission to reapply for entry. Immigration and Customs Enforcement then issued an immigration arrest warrant, transferred him to the Kandiyohi County Jail, and later transferred him to the Sherburne County Jail, where the opinion says he remained.

On June 12, 2026, the Department of Homeland Security reinstated the 2019 removal order, and a removal warrant was filed. Esequiel argued that he was detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2), that his arrest violated the Fourth Amendment and the Accardi doctrine, and that his continued detention violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and the Administrative Procedure Act. The respondents argued that he was subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a) because he was under a final removal order.

Court’s analysis

The court treated the key issue as whether Esequiel’s detention was governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1)(A) because of the final removal order. That statute requires the government to remove a person within a specified removal period and requires detention during the 90-day removal period. The court explained that when a person illegally reenters after removal, federal law allows the government to reinstate the earlier removal order from its original date, without reopening or reviewing that order, and to remove the person under it.

The court concluded that Esequiel’s removal order was final and that his detention therefore could not be challenged on the grounds raised in the petition. The court also stated that the 90-day removal period had not elapsed, even considering his pre-removal detention in 2019. The court acknowledged questions about the legality and timing of the initial arrest, but concluded that even an unlawful arrest would not change the fact that Esequiel was subject to detention under § 1231.

Recommendation and procedure

The report recommends that the petition be DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The report and recommendation is not a final order or judgment of the District Court and is not directly appealable to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The notice states that a party may file specific written objections within 14 days after being served with the report and recommendation.