Islamuddin A. v. Blanche

Background

Islamuddin A. filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, a procedure allowing a federal court to order release from detention that violates federal law or the Constitution. The District of Minnesota’s report and recommendation concerns his detention by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) at the Sherburne County Jail in Elk River, Minnesota, beginning October 1, 2025.

Islamuddin A. is a citizen of Afghanistan who entered the United States through the Operation Allies Welcome parole program on August 27, 2021. His permission to remain lasted until August 26, 2023. He lived in Bloomington, Minnesota, with his wife and three children and worked full-time. In 2023, he was arrested on a prostitution charge involving a person between 13 and 15 years old. He was convicted in November 2024 under Minnesota Statute § 609.324, subdivision 1(c)(3), and sentenced to 30 days in jail.

On October 1, 2025, officers conducting a targeted fugitive operation stopped Islamuddin A.’s vehicle, ordered him out, handcuffed him, searched him, and transported him to Fort Snelling. The government issued a Notice to Appear that day. A Notice to Appear is the document that begins removal proceedings. Officers served Islamuddin A. with a Form I-200 administrative warrant after transporting him to Fort Snelling. The warrant had been issued on August 29, 2025, more than a month before the Notice to Appear. Its probable-cause section was blank, with no probable-cause box checked and no other probable-cause information recorded.

An immigration judge later denied Islamuddin A.’s applications for asylum and withholding of removal but granted deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture. His appeal of that decision remained pending when the report and recommendation was issued.

Claims and Analysis

Islamuddin A. asserted three grounds: (1) his continued detention violated substantive due process because the government had not shown that he was a flight risk or danger to the community; (2) his detention violated procedural due process because the Form I-200 warrant was defective and he received the Notice to Appear only after detention; and (3) his arrest without a warrant violated the Fourth Amendment, 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(2), and 8 C.F.R. § 287.3(d). The government opposed the petition.

The report focused on the arrest. The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, including arrests of noncitizens. The report explained that a noncitizen may be arrested during removal proceedings under an arrest warrant issued under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), or without a warrant under § 1357(a)(2) when an immigration officer has probable cause to believe the person is unlawfully present and likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained.

The report found the Form I-200 warrant invalid for two independent reasons. First, it contained no probable-cause explanation. The government’s attorney attempted to identify probable cause through facts such as Islamuddin A.’s conviction and the denial of his parole-extension request, but the report concluded that later events could not establish probable cause for a warrant issued earlier and that the record lacked supporting evidence from the officer who signed the warrant. Second, the warrant was issued more than a month before the Notice to Appear. The report concluded that the regulation permits a Form I-200 warrant to issue at the same time as, or after, the Notice to Appear—not before it.

The report also rejected the government’s alternative argument that the arrest was authorized without a warrant under § 1357(a)(2). The record did not show that Islamuddin A. was likely to escape before a valid warrant could be obtained, and the government did not argue that he presented such a risk. The report therefore concluded that the arrest was not authorized under either § 1226(a) or § 1357(a)(2).

Recommendation and Procedure

Judge Docherty recommended that Islamuddin A.’s petition be granted to the stated extent and that he be released immediately. Because the report found an unlawful arrest and recommended release on Fourth Amendment grounds, it did not reach Islamuddin A.’s other arguments.

This document is a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, not a final District Court order or judgment. The notice states that objections were due by August 13, 2026, and responses to objections were due by August 20, 2026. It also states that the report and recommendation was not directly appealable to the Eighth Circuit.