Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Emilio S.R.G.,
Petitioner,
v.
Markwayne Mullin, Secretary,
Department of Homeland Security; Todd
M. Lyons, Acting Director, Immigration
and Customs Enforcement; David
Easterwood, Acting Director, St. Paul
Field Office Immigration and Customs
Enforcement,
Respondents.
Case No. 26-cv-2189 (KMM/DLM)
REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Emilio S.R.G.’s Petition for a Writ of
Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. 1.) Emilio S.R.G. alleges that his
immigration detention violates federal law and regulations as well as the Fifth
Amendment’s Due Process Clause. He also alleges that his arrest violates the Fourth
Amendment. Respondents, for their part, contend that because Petitioner was arrested
pursuant to a valid warrant, and his detention complies with both 8 U.S.C. § 1231 and 8
C.F.R. § 241.13, his arrest and detention are both lawful, and therefore his petition should
be denied. (See generally Doc. 5.) Emilio S.R.G.’s Petition now comes before the Court
for review under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States
CASE 0:26-cv-02189-KMM-DLM Doc. 8 Filed 05/11/26 Page 1 of 16

2
District Court.1 The case has been referred to the undersigned United States Magistrate
Judge for a Report and Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and District of
Minnesota Local Rule 72.1. For the reasons explained below, the Court recommends that
Emilio S.R.G.’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) be granted.
BACKGROUND
Emilio S.R.G. is a native of Cuba and came to the United States as a refugee on July
11, 1980, in a mass migration known as the Mariel Boatlift. (Docs. 1 ¶ 1; 6 ¶¶ 5, 47; 6-1 at
2.) On July 12, the United States Immigration & Naturalization Service (“USINS”) paroled
Petitioner into the United States in Key West, Florida as a Cuban parolee. (Doc. 6 ¶ 5.)
Following a string of convictions in Nevada and Utah from 1985 to 1987, USINS placed
Emilio S.R.G. in exclusion proceedings on January 13, 19882, and served him with a Form-
122, Notice to Applicant for Admission Detained for Hearing Before Immigration Judge;
and Form I-110, Notice to Immigration Judge. (Docs. 6 ¶¶ 6-12; 6-1; 6-9.) On June 12,
1990, Petitioner was released from USINS custody on parole by a USINS Cuban Review
Panel. (Doc. 6 ¶ 13.)
After he was released from USINS custody, Emilio S.R.G. migrated to Minnesota,
where between 1994 and 1997, he accrued several more convictions. (Id. ¶¶ 14-18.) On
September 26, 1997, Petitioner was returned to USINS custody, and his parole status was
1Although Emilio S.R.G.’s Petition is not filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, the Court may
apply the rules governing that section per Rule 1(b).
2 Respondents’ Declaration indicates that Petitioner was placed in exclusion proceedings
on June 13, 1988, however, Respondents’ corresponding exhibits indicate that Petitioner
was placed in exclusion proceedings on January 13, 1988. (Contrast Doc. 6 ¶ 12 with Docs.
6-1; 6-9.)
CASE 0:26-cv-02189-KMM-DLM Doc. 8 Filed 05/11/26 Page 2 of 16

3
terminated for failure to comply with the conditions of his release. (Id. ¶ 19.) USINS issued
a Form I-862, Notice to Appear in Removal Proceedings to Petitioner, on October 15, 1997.
(Id. ¶ 20; Doc. 6-2.) Then, on October 28, 1997, an Immigration Judge in Chicago, Illinois,
ordered Emilio S.R.G. removed from the United States to Cuba. (Docs. 6 ¶ 21; 6-3.) On
February 20, 1998, Petitioner was again released from USINS custody on parole status by
a USINS Cuban Review Panel. (Doc. 6 ¶ 22.)
After his 1998 parole, Emilio S.R.G. amassed another string of convictions in
Minnesota from 1998 to 2001. (Id. ¶¶ 23-25.) On June 14, 2004, U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement (“ICE”)3 took Petitioner into custody once more for failure to
comply with his release conditions. (Id. ¶ 26.) He was released again on parole by a
Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) Cuban Review Panel. (Id. ¶ 27.)
In 2008, Petitioner accumulated three more convictions while in Minnesota. (Id. ¶¶
28-30.) On December 1, 2008, Emilio S.R.G. was returned to ICE custody for failure to
comply with the conditions of release and his parole was revoked the next day. (Docs. 6 ¶
31; 6-10.) On March 4, 2009, ICE released Petitioner on an Order of Supervision (“OSUP”)
due to the Cuban government’s unwillingness to repatriate him. (Docs. 6 ¶ 32; 6-4.) One
of the conditions of Petitioner’s OSUP was that he commit no crimes. (Doc. 6-4 at 3.) When
Petitioner was released on the OSUP, he was instructed to report back on August 1, 2009.4
3 In March 2003, USINS was dissolved, and its enforcement functions were transferred to
ICE.
4 Respondents’ Declaration states that Petitioner was instructed to report back on August
1, 2008, but the OSUP itself contains a handwritten notation which indicates he was
instructed to “report in person on 8/01/09.” (Contrast Doc. 6 ¶ 33 with Doc. 6-4 at 1.) This
makes sense, as a 2009 OSUP could not order someone to appear in 2008.
CASE 0:26-cv-02189-KMM-DLM Doc. 8 Filed 05/11/26 Page 3 of 16

4
(Docs. 6 ¶ 33; 6-4 at 1.) However, Respondents attest that DHS electronic records indicate
that Emilio S.R.G. failed to report to ICE from 2009 to 2012. (Doc. 6 ¶ 33.)
On August 9, 2012, ICE sent a G-56 call-in letter to Emilio S.R.G.’s last known
address instructing him to report to ICE on August 30, 2012, and ICE received a signed
confirmation of delivery receipt with Petitioner’s signature, establishing his receipt of the
notice. (Docs. 6 ¶ 34; 6-5 at 1-2.) But Petitioner did not report, and ICE’s attempts to
contact him by phone were unsuccessful. (Doc. 6 ¶ 34.) Respondents attest that DHS
electronic records show that Petitioner also failed to report to ICE in 2013, 2014, and 2015.
(Id. ¶ 35.)
On March 3, 2015, ICE located Emilio S.R.G. at the Becker County Jail in
Minnesota, contacted him by phone, and instructed him to report to ICE within 72 hours
of release from jail. (Id. ¶ 36.) But Petitioner again failed to report. (Id.) Then on March
27, a woman identifying herself as Petitioner’s girlfriend called ICE on his behalf and
stated that it was not possible for Petitioner to appear at the ICE office, but he would appear
on May 1, 2015. (Id.) On April 16, and July 8, 2015, ICE identified Petitioner as being in
custody in county jails on criminal charges. (Id. ¶ 37.)
According to Respondents, Petitioner failed to report to ICE from 2015 to 2018.
(Id.) This was likely because Emilio S.R.G. was convicted of third-degree drug sale on
December 18, 2015, in Becker County and sentenced to 68 months in prison. (Id. ¶ 38.) On
March 27, 2018, ICE located Petitioner at the Becker County Jail after his arrest on a parole
violation. (Id. ¶ 39.) ICE sent another G-56 call-in letter by fax to the jail, instructing
Petitioner to report to ICE within 72 hours of his release, but he did not report. (Id.) On
CASE 0:26-cv-02189-KMM-DLM Doc. 8 Filed 05/11/26 Page 4 of 16

5
October 18, 2018, ICE located Petitioner at the Minnesota Correctional Facility (“MCF”)-
Lino Lakes with a projected release date of July 15, 2019. (Id. ¶ 40.) Emilio S.R.G. failed
to report to ICE in 2019, 2020, and 2021. (Id. ¶ 41.)
On March 10, 2021, ICE identified Petitioner once more at the Becker County Jail
and sent him another G-56 call-in letter by fax instructing him to report to ICE within 48
hours of his release. (Id. ¶ 42.) Petitioner failed to report as instructed and failed to report
from 2022 through 2026. (Id.) Again, Petitioner’s failures to report were linked to his
criminal matters. On October 3, 2022, Emilio S.R.G. was convicted in North Dakota of
unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia. (Id. ¶ 43.) Then on May 15, 2023, he was
convicted in Minnesota of possession of ammunition/any firearm – conviction or
adjudicated delinquent for crime of violence and sentenced to 60 months in prison. (Id. ¶
44.)
On May 18, 2023, DHS lodged a detainer request with the Minnesota Department
of Corrections for Emilio S.R.G. (Id. ¶ 45.) On March 2, 2026, ICE revoked Petitioner’s
release on supervision. (Doc. 6-6 at 2.) The next day, ICE arrested Petitioner upon his
release from MCF-Faribault and served him with a Notice of Revocation, an Assumption
of Custody Notification, and a Form I-205 Warrant of Removal. (Docs. 6 ¶ 46; 6-6 at 2-3,
5.) ICE then transferred Petitioner from MCF-Faribault to immigration custody at the
Sherburne County Jail. (Doc. 6-11 at 4.) Later that same day, ICE conducted an informal
interview with Petitioner at the Sherburne jail. (Docs. 6-6 at 4; 6-11 at 4.)
Although DHS and the State Department have engaged in “diplomatic efforts to
increase acceptance” of Cuban nationals by the Cuban government, Respondents represent
CASE 0:26-cv-02189-KMM-DLM Doc. 8 Filed 05/11/26 Page 5 of 16

6
that the Cuban government has traditionally denied repatriation to people like Emilio
S.R.G., who came to the United States during the Mariel Boatlift. (Doc. 6 ¶ 47.) Even so,
according to Respondents, other countries have “entered into agreements with the United
States in 2025 and 2026 to accept third-country nationals.” (Id.) For example, say
Respondents, Mexico is now accepting third-country nationals who are not eligible to
return to Cuba, and these third-country removals to Mexico “are occurring on a weekly
basis at various border ports along the southern border[.]” (Id. ¶ 48.)
Within this context, on March 3, 2026,5—at the same time he was taken into ICE’s
custody—ICE served Emilio S.R.G. with a Notice of Third Country Removal for Mexico,
Form I-229(a). (Docs. 6 ¶ 49; 6-7 at 1.) A few days later, on March 8, ICE then served
Petitioner with a Warning for Failure to Depart and Instruction Sheet, informing him of the
legal consequences should he fail to comply with the final order of removal. (Docs. 6 ¶ 49;
6-7 at 2-3.) On March 13, ICE transferred Emilio S.R.G. to a facility in Louisiana, and then
on March 23, 2026, transferred him to a facility in Arizona in preparation for removal to
Mexico. (Doc. 6 ¶ 50.) But on March 25, 2026, Petitioner refused to comply with removal
to Mexico and so he was transferred back to the Sherburne County Jail on March 31. (Id.
¶¶ 51-52.) ICE issued a Notice of Failure to Comply Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 241.4(g), on
April 7, 2026, and served Petitioner with the Notice on April 13, 2026. (Docs. 6 ¶ 53; 6-8.)
5 Respondents’ Declaration states that ICE served Emilio S.R.G. with a Notice of Third
Country Removal on March 9, 2026, but Respondents’ exhibits shows that the notice was
served on Petitioner on March 3, 2026, at 7:10 a.m., the same time he was released from
MCF-Faribault and taken into ICE custody. (Contrast Doc. 6 ¶ 49 with Doc. 6-7 at 1.)
CASE 0:26-cv-02189-KMM-DLM Doc. 8 Filed 05/11/26 Page 6 of 16

7
ICE has referred Petitioner’s case to DHS Headquarters for nomination to an alternate third
country for removal. (Doc. 6 ¶ 54.)
Emilio S.R.G. filed his petition for habeas relief on April 9, 2026. (Doc. 1.) The
Court ordered Respondents to show cause why Emilio S.R.G.’s petition should not be
granted no later than April 23, 2026, with Petitioner’s reply due by April 30, 2026. (Doc.
3.) The matter is now fully briefed. (Docs. 5 (Response), 7 (Reply).)
In his petition Emilio S.R.G. challenges his arrest and detention on the grounds that
Respondents failed to follow their own procedure; violated 8 U.S.C. § 1231; violated his
Fifth Amendment Substantive and Procedural Due Process rights; and violated his Fourth
Amendment right against warrantless arrest. Respondents contend that Petitioner’s arrest
was supported by a warrant; that his detention complies with 8 U.S.C. § 1231, and that the
revocation of his Order of Supervision followed the requirements of 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(i)(1)
and (3). In his reply brief, Petitioner winnows his argument down to focus on what he
alleges was an inadequate revocation procedure under § 241.13(i)(3). He asserts that
Respondents failed to provide proper notice of revocation, which in turn invalidated the
informal interview, all in violation of his due process rights. According to Petitioner,
because of this deficient process, he should be immediately released.
ANALYSIS
The writ of habeas corpus is a procedure available to prisoners to create government
accountability for unlawful detention. See Peyton v. Rowe, 391 U.S. 54, 58 (1968); Ex parte
McCardle, 73 U.S. (6 Wall.) 318, 325-26 (1867). The right to habeas relief extends to
“persons challenging the lawfulness of immigration-related detention.” Deng Chol A. v.
CASE 0:26-cv-02189-KMM-DLM Doc. 8 Filed 05/11/26 Page 7 of 16

8
Barr, 455 F. Supp. 3d 896, 900-01 (D. Minn. 2020) (citing Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510,
517 (2003) and Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 687). Federal courts have the authority to order the
release of “detained noncitizens when ICE fails to follow its own regulations.” Sarail A. v.
Bondi, 803 F. Supp. 3d 775, 779 (8th Cir. 2025).
To begin, although 8 U.S.C. § 1231 is the primary statute governing detention and
removal of noncitizens, because Emilio S.R.G. is a noncitizen with a final removal order
who was released from immigration detention under an Order of Supervision and now faces
revocation of his release, the proper framework for review is 8 C.F.R. § 241.13. See
Levkovich v. Trump, 26-cv-938 (SHL/DLM) (Order found at Doc. 4) (D. Minn. Feb. 8,
2026) (describing § 241.13’s applicability to petitioner’s revocation of supervised release
after a final order of removal). Respondents spend much of their response trying to
persuade the Court that Petitioner’s continued detention is lawful under 8 U.S.C. § 1231
and Zadvydas v. Davis6 because Petitioner refused to cooperate with his removal. (Doc. 5
at 8-12.) But this misses the mark. Under Petitioner’s circumstances, § 241.13(i) applies,
and the government must show that it followed its own regulations when it revoked
Petitioner’s release. Vang v. Bondi, No. 26-cv-1381 (JMG/DLM), 2026 WL 458195, at *3
(D. Minn. Feb. 18, 2026) (citing Trejo v. Warden of ERO El Paso E. Mont., 25-cv-
401, 2025 WL 2992187, at *6-7 (W.D. Tex. Oct. 24, 2025) (distinguishing noncitizens
released under an order of supervision from “typical Zadvydas petitioners”)). “The
government’s failure to follow the regulations set forth in § 241.13 indicates an unlawful
6 Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001).
CASE 0:26-cv-02189-KMM-DLM Doc. 8 Filed 05/11/26 Page 8 of 16

9
detention.” Id. at *2; see also Rokhfirooz v. Larose, 804 F. Supp. 3d 1095, 1099 (S.D. Cali.
2025) (“Courts have determined that where ICE fails to follow its own regulations in
revoking release, the detention is unlawful and the petitioner’s release must be
ordered.”); Faysal N. v. Noem, No. 25-cv-4641 (JMB/DLM), 2026 WL 36066, at *5
(D. Minn. Jan. 6, 2026) (detention is unlawful where “ICE did not comply with its own
regulations under section 241.13(i)(2).”); Phongsavanh v. Williams, No. 25-cv-426
(SMR/SJB), 2025 WL 3124032, at *5 (S.D. Iowa Nov. 7, 2025) (same); accord Zhu v.
Genalo, 798 F. Supp. 3d 400, 414 (S.D.N.Y. 2025) (detention is unlawful where ICE failed
to follow procedures in § 241.4).
I. RESPONDENTS VIOLATED PETITIONER’S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS
WHEN THEY FAILED TO PROVIDE HIM WITH A MEANINGFUL
OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD DURING HIS INFORMAL INTERVIEW.
Title 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(i) sets out the requirements to revoke the release of a
noncitizen subject to an order of supervision. Id. § 241.13(i). There are two situations which
justify revocation of a noncitizen’s release: when a noncitizen violates any conditions of
their release, id. § 241.13(i)(1), or “on account of changed circumstances, the Service
determines that there is a significant likelihood that [the noncitizen] may be removed in the
reasonably foreseeable future” id. § 241.13(i)(2). In either case the government must follow
certain revocation procedures. Id. § 241.13(i)(3). First, “[u]pon revocation,” the noncitizen
must be “notified of the reasons for revocation of his or her release.” Id. Then, the
government must “conduct an initial informal interview promptly after [the noncitizen’s]
return to Service custody to afford the [noncitizen] an opportunity to respond to the reasons
CASE 0:26-cv-02189-KMM-DLM Doc. 8 Filed 05/11/26 Page 9 of 16

10
for revocation stated in the notification.” Id. At the informal interview, the noncitizen “may
submit any evidence or information that he or she believes shows there is no significant
likelihood he or she be removed in the reasonably foreseeable future, or that he or she has
not violated the order of supervision.” Id.
Emilio S.R.G. argues that his detention violates the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process
clause because the government did not follow its own regulations when it revoked his
release. Petitioner does not dispute that his OSUP might be subject to revocation, but
contends that Respondents failed to provide the bare requirements of due process necessary
to lawfully revoke his release and re-detain him. (Doc. 7 at 5.) From Petitioner’s view,
Respondents only revoked his release after he was detained, which gave him insufficient
notice of revocation. And, says Petitioner, conducting his informal interview on the same
day as his arrest (and just after completing a three-year prison sentence at a different
facility) rendered him unable to prepare evidence or collect information for his interview,
which deprived him of any meaningful opportunity to be heard. Respondents, for their part,
provide a single perfunctory paragraph explaining, from their perspective, that the
government followed the required procedures under § 241.13(i)(3) when it revoked
Petitioner’s release.
A. Respondents Provided Adequate Notice of Revocation.
Petitioner alleges that Respondents failed to provide effective notice of his
revocation when he was arrested on March 3, 2026, because, as he puts it, ICE agents
detained him first and then served the Notice of Revocation of Release second. Petitioner
CASE 0:26-cv-02189-KMM-DLM Doc. 8 Filed 05/11/26 Page 10 of 16

11
appears to imply that ICE failed to provide a Notice of Revocation of Release either before
or during his arrest on March 3.
The government is required to provide notice upon revocation. § 241.13(i)(3)
(“Upon revocation, the [noncitizen] will be notified of the reasons for revocation of his or
her release.”). Here, the Notice of Revocation was digitally signed the day before
Petitioner’s arrest by the Acting Director of ICE’s St. Paul Field Office. (Doc. 6-6 at 2.)
The Notice states that Petitioner’s OSUP, which was issued on March 4, 2009, was revoked
under 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(i) because he violated the conditions of his release based on his
conviction of third-degree drug sale (committed in 2014) and a conviction of possession of
ammunition/any firearm (committed in 2022). (Id. at 1.) The Notice also shows that it was
personally served on Petitioner on March 3, 2026, at 7:10 a.m., at MCF-Faribault. (Id. at
2.) The Notice of Revocation of Release was also accompanied by an Assumption of
Custody Notification, which shows that it was also served on Petitioner on March 3, 2026,
at 7:10 a.m., at MCF-Faribault, where ICE agents arrested Emilio S.R.G. (Id. at 3.) And
Petitioner’s Record of Deportable/Inadmissible Alien from the day of his arrest also shows
that both the Notification of Revocation of Release, Form 71-091, and Assumption of
Custody Notification, Form 71-075 were provided to Petitioner at the time of his arrest.
(Doc. 6-11 at 4.)
On this record, the Court finds that ICE provided adequate notice to Emilio S.R.G.
The Notice of Revocation of Release was signed the day before Petitioner’s arrest and
detailed the violations of the conditions of his release, as required by § 241.13(i)(1), which
ICE said justified his return to custody—two convictions for crimes committed in 2014
CASE 0:26-cv-02189-KMM-DLM Doc. 8 Filed 05/11/26 Page 11 of 16

12
and 2022. ICE agents then served both the Notification of Revocation of Release and
Assumption of Custody Notification on Petitioner on March 3, 2026, at 7:10 a.m., at the
time of his arrest. (Docs. 6-6 at 2-3; 6-11 at 4.) Nothing in § 241.13 prohibits providing
notice it the manner employed here.
But the Court’s inquiry does not end at there. ICE’s revocation procedures also
require an informal interview after a noncitizen has been returned to custody to “afford the
[noncitizen] an opportunity to respond to the reasons for revocation stated in the
notification.” § 241.13(i)(3). Although the Court finds that ICE provided adequate notice
to Emilio S.R.G. at the time of his arrest, the question remains whether Petitioner’s
informal interview was conducted in a manner that ensured due process.
B. Respondents Deprived Emilio S.R.G. of a Meaningful Opportunity to Be
Heard During His Informal Interview.
Petitioner contends that although he was provided with an informal interview after
he was taken into ICE’s custody, he was deprived of any opportunity to prepare evidence
or collect information to submit during the interview because it was conducted on the same
day of his arrest, just after his release from a three-year prison sentence. Thus, according
to Petitioner, any due process afforded by the interview was “completely illusory.” (Doc. 7
at 9.)
“The fundamental requirement of due process is the opportunity to be heard at a
meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.” Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333
(1976) (internal citations omitted). For noncitizens subject to re-detention, this
fundamental right is secured by the informal interview requirement under § 241.13(i)(3).
CASE 0:26-cv-02189-KMM-DLM Doc. 8 Filed 05/11/26 Page 12 of 16

13
At the interview, a noncitizen is provided an opportunity to challenge their return to custody
by adequately responding to the stated reasons in the Notice of Revocation. See id. To
overcome the stated reasons, the noncitizen “may submit any evidence or information that
he . . . believes shows . . . that he . . . has not violated the order of supervision.” Id.
When ICE arrested Petitioner on March 3, 2026, he was transferred directly from
the custody of MCF-Faribault to ICE’s custody at 7:10 a.m. (Docs. 6 ¶¶ 44, 45, 46; 6-6 at
2-3.) That same day, ICE agents transferred Petitioner to the Sherburne County Jail in Elk
River, Minnesota. (Doc. 6-11 at 4.) Then, around 5:00 p.m. on that same day, an ICE agent
conducted an informal interview with Petitioner. (Doc. 6-6 at 4.) Petitioner provided no
documents or statements to the agent. (Id.)
The Court finds that the government violated its regulations when it conducted
Petitioner’s informal interview on the same day that it arrested him immediately upon his
release from a three-year prison sentence. See Kiwana v. LaRose, No. 25-cv-3678
(JES/SBC), 2026 WL 102661, at *5 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 2026); Saengphet v. Noem, et al.,
No. 25-cv-2909 (JES/BLM), 2025 WL 3240808, at *5-6 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 20, 2025).
Conducting the interview in this manner, under these constraints, “deprived Petitioner of a
meaningful opportunity to contest his detention, which violated his due process rights.”
Kiwana, 2026 WL 102661, at *5 (citing Mathews, 424 U.S. at 335). This problem was
exacerbated by ICE transferring Petitioner from MCF-Faribault to the Sherburne County
Jail before conducting the interview, leaving Petitioner in a resource-free environment
when called upon to discuss the revocation of his OSUP.
CASE 0:26-cv-02189-KMM-DLM Doc. 8 Filed 05/11/26 Page 13 of 16

14
The Court recognizes that § 241.13(i)(3) requires that after a noncitizen is re-
detained and provided notice, an informal interview must be provided “promptly.” Id. But
to give any meaning to this prompt interview the noncitizen must also be afforded the
opportunity to submit evidence or information relevant to whether he violated the order of
supervision (or whether there is no significant likelihood he will be removed in the
reasonably foreseeable future, as the case may be). See id. And yet here, the moment
Petitioner’s three-year sentence expired, ICE agents were there to re-arrest him before he
left MCF-Faribault and took him directly to ICE custody in the Sherburne County Jail.
Throughout this process, Petitioner had no ability to access his personal or legal records.
And so, when an ICE agent conducted his informal interview the same day he was re-
arrested, he could submit no evidence or information to overcome the government’s stated
justifications for revocation.
Fairly, one might struggle to contemplate any defense Petitioner might conjure to
show he did not violate his conditions. But predicting the ultimate result of such an inquiry
is not the constitutional question. Rather, “[t]he essence of due process is notice and an
opportunity to respond.” Roble v. Bondi, 803 F. Supp. 3d 766, 772 (D. Minn. 2025)
(emphasis added). There is no due process with one, but not the other. See id. And an
opportunity to respond, if it is to satisfy the requirements of due process, must afford a
noncitizen facing revocation of release “a meaningful opportunity to present their case”
during the informal interview. Mathews, 424 U.S. at 348-49. Because Petitioner had no
ability to access his personal or legal records when ICE re-arrested him in prison and then
took him directly to the Sherburne County Jail, he had no evidence or information to submit
CASE 0:26-cv-02189-KMM-DLM Doc. 8 Filed 05/11/26 Page 14 of 16

15
in the informal interview, and thus no “meaningful opportunity to present [his] case” in
response to the government’s Notice of Revocation. Id. As a result, Respondents failed to
provide Petitioner with a meaningful opportunity to challenge his detention, as
§ 241.13(i)(3) and due process require. The Court therefore recommends that Petitioner
Emilio S.R.G.’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) be granted.
II. NO EVIDENTIARY HEARING IS REQUIRED.
An evidentiary hearing is appropriate only when material facts are in dispute. Ruiz
v. Norris, 71 F.3d 1404, 1406 (8th Cir. 1995). An evidentiary hearing is not required when
a conclusion can be reached on the issue with the undisputed facts. United States v. Winters,
411 F.3d 967, 973 (8th Cir. 2005). This matter can be resolved based on the existing record,
and thus the Court finds no evidentiary hearing is necessary.
III. OBJECTIONS.
Given the expedited nature of these proceedings, the Court exercises its discretion
to alter the standard timelines for Respondents to file objections to this Report and
Recommendation. See Local Rule 72.2(b)(1) (“A party may file and serve specific written
objections to a magistrate judge’s proposed findings and recommendations within 14 days
after being served with a copy of the recommended disposition, unless the court sets a
different deadline.”) (emphasis added). Respondents must file any objection to this Report
and Recommendation on or before May 16, 2026. Petitioner may file a response to any
objections on or before May 21, 2026. See L.R. 72.2(b)(2).
CASE 0:26-cv-02189-KMM-DLM Doc. 8 Filed 05/11/26 Page 15 of 16

16
RECOMMENDATION
Accordingly, based on all the files, records, and proceedings in this case, IT IS
RECOMMENDED that:
1. Petitioner Emilio S.R.G.’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) be
GRANTED; and;
2. Respondents be ordered to release Petitioner Emilio S.R.G. from custody
a. Immediately;
b. Inside the State of Minnesota;
c. And with all of Petitioner’s personal effects in Respondents’
possession or control, including, but not limited to, his driver’s
license, immigration paperwork, work authorization, cell phone, keys,
clothing, personal effects.
Date: May 11, 2026 s/Douglas L. Micko
DOUGLAS L. MICKO
United States Magistrate Judge
CASE 0:26-cv-02189-KMM-DLM Doc. 8 Filed 05/11/26 Page 16 of 16