Patel v. Noem
Dipakkumar Baldevbhai Patel v. Kristi Noem, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Mike Stasko, Jail Administrator, Freeborn County Jail, Minnesota
- Eric Tostrud
- 0:25-cv-03167
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 5
In Dipakkumar Baldevbhai Patel v. Kristi Noem, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster recommends denying an Indian citizen's petition seeking release from immigration detention, a court order forcing the government to process his U-Visa application, and a declaration that his detention is unlawful, finding the court lacks the power to hear his release claim and that his other claims were improperly bundled into a single filing.
Noncitizens held in immigration detention who are subject to existing removal orders and who seek federal court review of their detention, particularly those who have pending immigration benefit applications such as U-Visas and argue that such applications make their detention unlawful.
What happened
In Dipakkumar Baldevbhai Patel v. Kristi Noem, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the petitioner is a citizen of India who entered the United States without authorization in 2010, was issued a deportation order that same day, applied for asylum (which was denied), was released on bond in 2011, and then twice failed to appear for scheduled deportation. He remained in the United States for years, applied for a U-Visa (a visa available to crime victims who cooperate with law enforcement) in April 2024, was located and arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in July 2025, and is currently held at the Freeborn County Jail in Albert Lea, Minnesota while the government awaits a travel document to deport him to India.
Mr. Patel filed a single petition asking the court to do three things: (1) order his release from detention through a writ of habeas corpus (a court order requiring the government to justify holding someone in custody); (2) order the government to decide his pending U-Visa application through a writ of mandamus (a court order compelling a government official to perform a duty); and (3) declare the government's actions unlawful. The court found two fundamental problems with the petition. First, it improperly combined a habeas corpus claim with other civil claims in one filing, which courts in this district and others have rejected because these types of proceedings operate under different rules. Second, and more critically, a federal statute — 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g) — strips federal district courts of the power to hear claims that arise from the government's decision to carry out a deportation order, which is exactly what Mr. Patel's detention stems from. The court rejected Mr. Patel's argument that his case was really about unlawful arrest rather than a removal order, calling the distinction purely semantic.
Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster issued this ruling as a Report and Recommendation, meaning it is a proposal to the district court judge assigned to the case rather than a final order. The recommendation is that the entire petition be denied. Mr. Patel also attempted to voluntarily withdraw his case on the same day, but the court found that move was improper because the government had already filed a response to his petition, which under the applicable rule prevents a party from unilaterally dismissing a case. Any party has 14 days from receiving this recommendation to file written objections with the district court.
The detailed version
- Dipakkumar Baldevbhai Patel v. Kristi Noem, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Mike Stasko, Jail Administrator, Freeborn County Jail, Minnesota, No. 25-cv-3167 (ECT/DJF)
- U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota **Authoring Judge:** Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster
- September 12, 2025 **Procedural Posture:** Report and Recommendation on petition for habeas corpus, mandamus, declaratory judgment, and injunctive relief
Background Facts: Dipakkumar Baldevbhai Patel is a native and citizen of India who unlawfully entered the United States near El Cenizo, Texas on or about November 24,
- U.S. Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) apprehended him the same day and issued an expedited removal order. Mr. Patel immediately applied for asylum, but an Asylum Officer denied the application and an Immigration Judge affirmed the denial. ICE released Mr. Patel on bond on April 19, 2011, while waiting for a travel document from India to execute the removal order. ICE received a travel document on July 20, 2012, and ordered Mr. Patel to appear for deportation on August 16, 2012; he failed to appear. ICE issued a second notice; he again failed to appear. ICE cancelled his bond on March 2,
- Approximately eleven years later, Mr. Patel applied for a U-Visa (available to noncitizens who are crime victims and cooperate with law enforcement, under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(15)(U), 1182(a); 8 C.F.R. §§ 214.1(a)(3)(i), 214.14(b)). The court noted in a footnote that Mr. Patel's application for deferred action under the U-Visa program was denied because he failed to submit required forms, undermining the substantive basis of his unlawful-detention argument. ICE located and arrested Mr. Patel in Hudson, Wisconsin on July 30,
- He is currently detained at the Freeborn County Jail in Albert Lea, Minnesota. ICE Deportation Officer John D. Ligon submitted a declaration stating ICE believes there is a significant likelihood of removal in the foreseeable future and that ICE has conducted removals to India within the past month.
Claims Raised
Mr. Patel filed a combined petition seeking: (1) a writ of habeas corpus ordering his release; (2) a writ of mandamus compelling USCIS to adjudicate his pending U-Visa application (pending since April 2024); and (3) declaratory and injunctive relief declaring Respondents' actions unlawful. Respondents are Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem and Freeborn County Jail Administrator Mike Stasko.
Grounds for Recommendation to Deny
First Ground — Improper Aggregation of Claims: The court found that Mr. Patel improperly combined a habeas petition with non-habeas civil claims (mandamus and declaratory relief) in a single filing. Citing decisions from this district and the Third Circuit, the court characterized this as an impermissible 'Frankenstein pleading' that unduly broadens habeas corpus and combines proceedings governed by incompatible procedural rules. See Canada v. Olmstead County Cmty of Corrs., No. 21-CV-2120, 2022 WL 607482 (D. Minn. Mar. 1, 2022); Burnam v. Marberry, 313 F. App'x 455 (3d Cir. 2009). The court stated that if Mr. Patel wishes to pursue mandamus or declaratory relief, he must do so in a separate action, but expressly declined to suggest any such action would be meritorious, noting the jurisdiction concerns would likely apply with equal force.
Second Ground — Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction Over Habeas Claim: Subject matter jurisdiction (the court's authority to hear a particular type of case) is a threshold requirement that must be satisfied before a court can rule on the merits. See Sinochem Int'l Co. Ltd. v. Malaysia Int'l Shipping Corp., 549 U.S. 422, 430-31 (2007). Congress has the constitutional authority to limit lower federal courts' subject matter jurisdiction. See Royal Canin U.S.A., Inc. v. Wullschleger, 604 U.S. 22, 26 (2025). Exercising that authority, Congress enacted 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g), which bars federal district courts from hearing 'any cause or claim by or on behalf of any alien arising from the decision or action by the Attorney General [now construed to mean the Secretary of Homeland Security, see Silva v. United States, 866 F.3d 938, 940 n.2 (8th Cir. 2017)] to commence proceedings, adjudicate cases, or execute removal orders against any alien.' Because ICE detained Mr. Patel specifically to execute the existing removal order against him, the court found § 1252(g) directly applies and strips the court of jurisdiction.
The court rejected Mr. Patel's argument that his petition was not a challenge to a removal order but rather a challenge to unlawful arrest and detention related to his pending U-Visa application. The court characterized this as a 'purely semantic' distinction, because his detention directly results from the Secretary's decision to execute the removal order. The court relied on Rodriguez-Sosa v. Whitaker, No. 18-CV-3261, 2018 WL 6727068 (D. Minn. Dec. 21, 2018), and Silva v. United States, 866 F.3d 938, 940 (8th Cir. 2017), which held that claims 'directly connected to the execution of [a] removal order' fall within § 1252(g) even if framed otherwise.
Footnote on Attempted Voluntary Dismissal: On the same day the Report and Recommendation was issued, Mr. Patel filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). The court found this improper because Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) only permits unilateral voluntary dismissal before the opposing party has served an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Respondents filed their Response (construed as an answer) on August 27, 2025, so the notice was procedurally defective.
Recommendation
Magistrate Judge Foster recommends that the petition be DENIED in its entirety.
Next Steps
This is a Report and Recommendation, not a final order. Under Local Rule 72.2(b)(1), any party may file written objections within 14 days of being served a copy. Responses to objections are due within 14 days of service of the objections. The assigned district court judge (identified in the case number as Judge ECT) will review any objections and issue a final ruling. This Report and Recommendation is not directly appealable to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Reviewer note from the AI+
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.