govinfo:USCOURTS-mnd-0_26-cv-02450-0

1 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA 
 
 
Pedro D.C., 
 
Petitioner, 
 
v. 
 
Todd Blanche, et al., 
 
Respondents. 
 
 
No. 26-cv-2450 (KMM/DLM) 
 
 
 
 
ORDER 
 
This matter is before the Court on th e Report and Recommendation (R&R) of 
United States Magistrate Judge Douglas L.  Micko recommending that Petitioner Pedro 
D.C.’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus be granted. (Dkt. 8.) For the reasons discussed 
below, the Court grants the habeas petition and orders Pedro D.C.’s immediate release. 
BACKGROUND 
 Pedro D.C. is a citizen of Mexico who en tered the United States in 2017. (Dkt. 1 
¶ 2.) In 2025, he applied for asylum, and his application remains pending. ( Id.; Dkt. 5 at 
2.) Pedro D.C. has no criminal history. (Dkt. 1  ¶ 114.) 
On April 16, 2026, the day of Petitione r’s arrest, immigration agents were 
“conducting surveillance” after receiving info rmation from the Far go Police Department 
about a person who provided a foreign identification do cument during a previous 
encounter. (Dkt. 6-3 at 2.) When  the agents saw someone matc hing the description, they 
conducted a vehicle stop a nd confirmed that the individual was Pedro D.C. ( Id.) During 
the stop, Petitioner provided his Minnesota driver’s license and “stated that he did not have 
CASE 0:26-cv-02450-KMM-DLM     Doc. 11     Filed 06/18/26     Page 1 of 5
2 
any legal documents to be in the United States.” (Id.) Pedro D.C. was served with an I-200 
Warrant for Arrest of Alien, which was dated the day of his arrest. (Id.) After he was taken 
into custody and transported to Grand Forks, North Dakota for processing, Petitioner was 
served with a Form I-862 Notice to Appear (NTA). (Dkt. 5 at 3; Dkt. 6-2 (NTA).) Since 
April 30, 2026, Petitioner has been detained in Minnesota. (Dkt. 5 at 3.) 
On May 1, 2026, Pe dro D.C. filed a habeas petiti on, arguing that he should be 
released or, alternatively, afforded a bond hearing. (Dkt. 1.) On May 30, 2026, Judge Micko 
issued the R&R that is currently before the Court recommending that Pedro D.C.’s habeas 
petition be granted and that he be ordered released. (Dkt. 8.) Respondents objected to the 
R&R, and Petitioner filed a Response. (Dkts. 9–10.) 
DISCUSSION 
 Because Respondents objected to the R&R, this Court reviews the matter de novo. 
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). 
 There are “two mechanisms by which ‘it is appropriate to arrest an alien during the 
removal process.’” Cesar F.F. v. Blanche , No. 26-cv-2540 (PJS/DTS), Dkt. 8 at 3 (D. 
Minn. June 2, 2026) [hereinafter Cesar F.F. Order] (quoting Arizona v. United States, 567 
U.S. 387, 407 (2012)). First, “[o]n a warrant issued by the Attorney General, an alien may 
be arrested and detained pending a decision on whether the alien is to be removed from the 
United States.” 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). Alternatively, the law allows for a warrantless arrest in 
limited circumstances. See 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(2). 
CASE 0:26-cv-02450-KMM-DLM     Doc. 11     Filed 06/18/26     Page 2 of 5
3 
I. Arrest Pursuant to Form I-200 Administrative Warrant 
A noncitizen “may be arrested and taken in to custody under the authority of Form 
I-200, Warrant of Arrest.” 8 C.F.R. § 236.1(b)(1); see 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). A Form I-200 
warrant “empowers [immigration agents] to arrest aliens during removal proceedings,” 
Cesar F.F. Order at 4. Therefore, an I-200 warrant is valid only if it is issued “[a]t the time 
of issuance of the notice to appear, or at any time thereafte r[.]” 8 C.F.R. § 236.1(b)(1); 
Martha C.G.P. v. Blanche , No. 26-cv-2308 (DWF /JFD), 2026 WL 13 29577, at *3 (D. 
Minn. May 13, 2026) (“Respondents may arrest  a noncitizen using a Form I-200 only if 
the Form I-200 issues at the same time or after the Department of Homeland Security issues 
an NTA.”); see also Gonzalez Ochoa v. McCleary , 816 F. Supp. 3d 921, 927 (S.D. Iowa 
2026) (“The temporal aspects of [8 C.F.R.§ 2 36.1(b)(1)] are clear: an arrest warrant may 
be issued ‘[a]t the time of issuance” of the Notice to Appear or ‘thereafter.’ Not ‘before.’”). 
The NTA is a “case-initiating document” that serves as the written notice of removal 
proceedings required under 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a)(1). Niz-Chavez v. Garland, 593 U.S. 155, 
164 (2021). 
Here, there is no evidence that the NTA ca me before the I-200 warrant. (Dkt. 5 at 
3.) Respondents argue it is possible that the i ssuance of the NTA preceded service of the 
I-200 warrant, even if the NTA was not served until afterwards. (Dkt. 9 at 6.) While 
possible, Respondents noticeably do not claim that is true here, let alone provide evidence 
to support that claim. Absent any basis to conclude that Respondents issued the NTA prior 
to Pedro D.C.’s arrest, the Co urt declines to make that a ssumption. Therefore, the Court 
CASE 0:26-cv-02450-KMM-DLM     Doc. 11     Filed 06/18/26     Page 3 of 5
4 
concludes that Petitioner was not arrested pursuant to a valid I-200 warrant under 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1226(a). 
II. Warrantless Arrest Under 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(2) 
A warrantless arrest of a noncitizen is permissible only if there is “reason to believe 
that the alien so arrested is in the United States in violati on of any [immigration] law or 
regulation and is likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained for his arrest[.]” 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1357(a)(2). In this context, “the term ‘reason to believe’ . . . means constitutionally 
required probable cause.” United States v. Quintana, 623 F.3d 1237, 1239 (8th Cir. 2010).  
Nothing in the record suggests that the arresting officers had any reason to believe 
Pedro D.C. was likely to escape before they could obtain a warrant. “The mere fact that [a 
noncitizen] may be removable is insufficient.” Cesar F.F. Order at 6; see also Moreno v. 
Napolitano, 213 F. Supp. 3d 999, 1007 (N.D. Ill. 2016) (“Nor can it be the case that, simply 
by being potentially removable, an alien must be deemed to be likely to evade detention by 
ICE. Such a reading would render the limitations on warrantless arrest created by 8 U.S.C. 
§§ 1226(a) and 1357(a)(2) meaningless.”). The Court concludes that there was no basis for 
a warrantless arrest here. 
Because Petitioner has met his burden of showing that his arrest was unlawful by a 
preponderance of the evidence, Maldonado v. Olson, 795 F. Supp. 3d 1134, 1143 (D. Minn. 
2025), he must be released, Carlos L.V.B. v. Bondi, No. 26-cv-898 (JWB/DJF), 2026 WL 
1231286, at *3 (D. Minn. Mar. 20 , 2026) (“[F]or detention that lacks a lawful predicate, 
release is an appropriate remedy.” (citing Munaf v. Geren, 553 U.S. 674, 693 (2008))).  
 
CASE 0:26-cv-02450-KMM-DLM     Doc. 11     Filed 06/18/26     Page 4 of 5
5 
 
ORDER 
 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 
1. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 9) is ADOPTED 
in part; 
2. Petitioner Pedro D.C.’s Pe tition for a Writ of Habeas  Corpus (Dkt. 1) is 
GRANTED in part; 
3. Within 48 hours of the entry of this Order , Respondents must release 
Petitioner with all of his personal pr operty and file a notice on the docket 
confirming that Petitioner has been timely released; and 
4. The remainder of Pedro D. C.’s habeas petition is DENIED without 
prejudice. 
Let judgment be entered accordingly. 
Date: June 18, 2026     s/Katherine M. Menendez    
Katherine M. Menendez  
United States District Judge 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE 0:26-cv-02450-KMM-DLM     Doc. 11     Filed 06/18/26     Page 5 of 5

Passage view · GavelSight