A.A. v. Noem
Shueb A.A. v. Kristi Noem, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Department of Homeland Security, in her official capacity, et al.
- Michael Davis
- 0:26-cv-01127
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
In Shueb A.A. v. Kristi Noem, Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster recommends transferring a Somali asylum seeker's petition for release from immigration detention from the District of Minnesota to the Western District of Oklahoma, because the petitioner was arrested and has been held in Oklahoma, not Minnesota.
Non-citizens (particularly asylum seekers) detained by ICE who seek to challenge their detention in federal court; this ruling addresses which federal court has the authority to hear such challenges based on where the person is physically held.
What happened
In Shueb A.A. v. Kristi Noem, a Somali citizen named Shueb A.A. came to the United States seeking asylum, was released, filed a timely asylum application that remains pending, and had a valid work permit with no criminal history and no missed immigration hearings. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) arrested him on January 12, 2026. He filed a petition in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota asking to be released or given a bond hearing, but he has been held at a detention facility in Cushing, Oklahoma since his arrest.
The key legal question was whether the Minnesota federal court had the authority (called jurisdiction) to hear the case. Federal law generally requires a petition for release from custody — called a habeas petition — to be filed in the district where the person is actually being held. There is a narrow exception when the government quickly transfers someone out of a district to prevent them from accessing courts or lawyers, but that exception did not apply here. Shueb initially claimed he was arrested in Minnesota, but the government produced documents showing he was arrested in Tulsa, Oklahoma and immediately held in Oklahoma. Shueb ultimately agreed the case should be moved.
Based on these facts, Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster issued a Report and Recommendation — a proposal to the district court judge — recommending that the respondents' motion be granted in part and that the case be transferred to the federal court in the Western District of Oklahoma. The motion to dismiss was not granted; only the transfer portion was recommended. The parties have 14 days to file written objections to this recommendation before a district court judge makes a final decision.
The detailed version
Case: Shueb A.A. v. Kristi Noem, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, et al., No. 26-cv-1127 (MJD/DJF), U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. Decided February 17, 2026, by Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster (Report and Recommendation).
Background
Petitioner Shueb A.A. is a Somali national who entered the United States to seek asylum and was initially detained on approximately December 8, 2022, then released on his own recognizance under 8 U.S.C. § 1226. He filed a timely asylum application on April 17, 2023, which remained pending at the time of this filing. The federal government issued him a work permit. He had no criminal history and had attended all immigration hearings. Despite this compliance, ICE arrested him on January 12, 2026. Since that date, he has been held at the Cimarron Detention Facility in Cushing, Oklahoma.
Shueb filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus (a court order requiring the government to justify why it is holding someone) in the District of Minnesota on February 6, 2026, seeking either immediate release or a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226. Respondents — federal officials Kristi Noem, Todd M. Lyons, and David Easterwood — moved to dismiss or transfer the case to the Western District of Oklahoma.
Legal Framework
Under the Supreme Court's decision in Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426 (2004), a habeas petition must ordinarily be filed in the federal district where the petitioner is confined. This rule is designed to prevent forum shopping (choosing a favorable court without a proper connection to the case). A recognized exception exists where the government arrests a petitioner in one district and then rapidly transfers them to another to limit their access to counsel or preferred courts. See Tah L. v. Trump, No. 26-cv-171 (D. Minn. Jan. 19, 2026); Ozturk v. Hyde, 136 F.4th 382 (2d Cir. 2025); Vasquez v. Reno, 233 F.3d 688 (1st Cir. 2000).
Analysis
Shueb's petition claimed he was arrested in Minnesota. Respondents disputed this and submitted two documentary exhibits: (1) an I-830 'Notice to EOIR: Alien Address' showing ICE detained Shueb on January 12, 2026 and placed him at the Cimarron Correctional Facility in Cushing, Oklahoma; and (2) an administrative arrest warrant showing the warrant was served on January 12, 2026 in Tulsa, Oklahoma. In response, Shueb conceded that the case should be transferred to Oklahoma (ECF No. 8). Because Shueb was arrested and has been continuously detained in Oklahoma, the exception for swift transfers to discourage forum shopping did not apply. The court concluded it lacked jurisdiction over the petition.
Ruling
Magistrate Judge Foster issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that Respondents' Motion to Dismiss or Transfer be GRANTED IN PART — specifically, the transfer portion — and that the Clerk of Court transfer the case to the Western District of Oklahoma. The motion to dismiss was not recommended for granting.
Procedural posture
This is a Report and Recommendation from a magistrate judge, not a final order. It is not directly appealable to the Eighth Circuit. Under Local Rule 72.2(b)(1), any party may file written objections within 14 days of being served. Responses to objections are due within 14 days of service of those objections. A district court judge must review any objections and issue a final ruling.
Reviewer note from the AI+
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.