Jose V.P.R. v. Sheriff of Freeborn County

Background

Jose V.P.R. filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his immigration detention. He alleged that Immigration and Customs Enforcement arrested him without a warrant and that his arrest and continued detention violated federal law, the Fourth Amendment, and the Fifth Amendment. He sought immediate release or a bond hearing.

According to Jose V.P.R.’s account, ICE stopped a work van on June 3, 2026, detained its occupants, and took him to the Freeborn County Adult Detention Center. Respondents’ evidence stated that ICE encountered him near a highway, checked Department of Homeland Security records, concluded that he was unlawfully present, issued and served him with a Form I-200 arrest warrant, and later issued and served him with a notice to appear. Jose V.P.R. had lived in the United States since 1999, had no criminal history, maintained full-time employment, and helped care for his elderly mother.

Statutory detention authority

Respondents argued that 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) required Jose V.P.R.’s detention because he was a noncitizen who had not been lawfully admitted. The court agreed that, under the Eighth Circuit’s interpretation in Avila v. Bondi, respondents had statutory authority to detain him under that provision. The court explained, however, that statutory detention authority did not resolve whether the arrest itself was lawful or whether continued detention without a bond hearing satisfied due process.

Validity of the arrest

The court concluded that the Form I-200 warrant did not validly authorize the arrest. The applicable regulation permits issuance of that warrant at the time the notice to appear is issued or afterward, while removal proceedings are ongoing. The record showed that ICE issued the warrant and took Jose V.P.R. into custody in Prescott, Wisconsin, but issued the notice to appear later, after processing him at Fort Snelling. Because the warrant came before the notice to appear, the court found that Jose V.P.R. was not arrested under a valid warrant.

The court then considered whether the arrest was lawful without a warrant under 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(2). That statute requires an immigration officer to have reason to believe both that the person is violating immigration laws and that the person is likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained. The court treated “reason to believe” as requiring probable cause. It found sufficient evidence for the first requirement because Jose V.P.R. voluntarily stated that he lacked lawful immigration status.

The court found insufficient evidence for the second requirement. It rejected respondents’ position that Jose V.P.R.’s long-term unlawful presence alone showed that he was likely to escape. The evidence did not show that he was driving either vehicle or had access to vehicle keys. The record also showed that he had no criminal history, was forthcoming with ICE, and provided identification including a driver’s license. The court reasoned that ICE could have located him at the address on that license after obtaining a warrant. It therefore concluded that respondents had not established probable cause for a warrantless arrest under § 1357(a)(2), ruled that the arrest was unlawful, and recommended immediate release.

Due process and bond hearing

The court separately addressed Jose V.P.R.’s argument that continued detention without an individualized bond hearing violated the Fifth Amendment. Applying the three-factor test from Mathews v. Eldridge, the court found that each factor favored him.

First, the court found a strong private interest because freedom from physical detention is a fundamental liberty interest and Jose V.P.R. was held in a county jail under conditions the court described as similar to criminal incarceration. Second, the court found a risk of erroneous detention because § 1225(b)(2) provided no process for him to contest whether he posed a flight or danger risk, and respondents had not provided an individualized review or argued that he would remain detained even after a bond hearing. Third, the court found that respondents had not identified a significant financial or administrative burden from providing a hearing.

The court rejected respondents’ reliance on decisions concerning mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c), explaining that those decisions did not resolve whether detention without a hearing is constitutional under § 1225(b)(2). It also found that decisions concerning people detained near the border did not control because Jose V.P.R. challenged detention procedures rather than review of a removal order and had lived in the United States for nearly 30 years.

Recommendation and procedure

The report and recommendation states that no evidentiary hearing was necessary because the matter could be resolved on the existing record and no material factual dispute required a hearing. Magistrate Judge Douglas L. Micko recommended that Jose V.P.R.’s petition be granted and that respondents be ordered to release him immediately in Minnesota, with at least eight hours’ notice to his attorney and with his personal effects. Alternatively, the court recommended that respondents provide him with a bond hearing before an immigration judge in Minnesota within seven days after the district court’s order on the report and recommendation. The court recommended denying any additional relief.

The report and recommendation is not a final district-court order or judgment. It stated that respondents could object by August 14, 2026, and that Jose V.P.R. could respond by August 21, 2026. The opinion does not state whether the district court later adopted or rejected the recommendation.