Niche News

DHS reports arrests in Minnesota during Operation Metro Surge, urges local cooperation with ICE

Interesting: 0/0 • Support: 0/0Log in to vote

Key takeaways

  • DHS published a January 15, 2026 press release highlighting arrests made during Operation Metro Surge in Minnesota.
  • The department described those arrested as "worst of the worst criminal illegal aliens" and cited charges including fraud, larceny, prostitution, vehicle theft, DUI, and drug trafficking.
  • DHS said Governor Tim Walz and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey have not cooperated with ICE and alleged nearly 470 criminal noncitizens were released from custody since the president took office.
  • DHS called on Walz and Frey to honor ICE arrest detainers for more than 1,360 noncitizens it says remain in state custody.
  • The release names specific individuals arrested (Khin Zaw Than; Juan Gonzalez-Escamilla; Juan Pablo Torres Cheme; Ying Li; Fadhily Abubakari Mshihiri) and lists alleged convictions or charges.
  • Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin is quoted criticizing local officials and saying DHS law enforcement will continue arrests despite alleged noncooperation and threats.

Follow Up Questions

What is Operation Metro Surge and what are its goals and legal authorities?Expand

Operation Metro Surge is a large, ongoing U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operation in Minnesota, launched in December 2025, that surges federal immigration agents into the Twin Cities and later the whole state to locate, arrest and remove noncitizens whom DHS characterizes as worst of the worst criminal illegal aliens. It is not created by a special statute; it is an ICE enforcement initiative carried out under existing Immigration and Nationality Act authorities that let DHS investigate, arrest, detain and remove people who are removable under federal immigration law, including:

  • INA �a7103(a), 8 U.S.C. �a71103(a) (gives the DHS secretary power to enforce and administer immigration laws)
  • INA �a7236, 8 U.S.C. �a71226 (authority to arrest and detain certain noncitizens pending removal proceedings)
  • INA �a7287, 8 U.S.C. �a71357, and related regulations (powers of immigration officers to interrogate, arrest, and conduct operations in the interior of the United States).

DHS press releases describe Operation Metro Surge as focused on arresting noncitizens with criminal convictions or charges in Minnesota, particularly in jurisdictions it labels as sanctuary because they limit cooperation with ICE.

What are ICE arrest detainers and how do they function legally when a local jurisdiction receives one?Expand

An ICE arrest detainer is a written request from ICE to another law-enforcement agency asking it to:

  1. Notify ICE before it releases a person ICE believes is removable, and
  2. Keep that person in custody for up to 48 additional hours (excluding weekends/holidays) after they would otherwise be released so ICE can take them into immigration custody.

Legal basis:

  • Detainers are authorized by DHS regulation 8 C.F.R. �a7287.7, issued under the secretarys general immigration-enforcement authority in INA �a7103(a)(3).
  • ICE describes detainers as requests, not mandatory orders; whether a state or local agency complies is governed by federalism and local law, and federal courts have held that compliance is generally voluntary, not required by federal statute.
What legal authority do state governors and city mayors have to limit or refuse cooperation with federal immigration enforcement?Expand

State governors and city mayors do not control federal immigration enforcement, but they do control their own officers and jails. Under the anti-commandeering doctrine of the Tenth Amendment, the federal government generally cannot force state or local officials to carry out federal programs.

As a result, states and cities can lawfully adopt sanctuary or limit-cooperation policies that, for example:

  • Decline to honor ICE detainer requests except in narrow circumstances;
  • Limit when local police may ask about immigration status;
  • Restrict sharing of certain information beyond what federal law (like 8 U.S.C. �a71373) specifically requires.

Congresss research arm and legal scholars have concluded that, absent a specific federal law commanding a state action (which would itself be constitutionally suspect), states and municipalities have broad discretion to refuse to use their own resources to help enforce federal immigration law.

After an ICE arrest like those described, what is the typical next legal process for the detained individuals (detention, immigration court, removal)?Expand

After an ICE arrest like those described:

  1. Processing and custody decision  ICE fingerprints and interviews the person and decides whether to:
    • Detain them in immigration custody, or
    • Release them (on bond, parole, or their own recognizance) while the case proceeds.
  2. Charging document  If ICE seeks removal, it serves a Notice to Appear (NTA), which formally starts civil removal proceedings when filed with the immigration court.
  3. Immigration court hearings  The case goes to the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR). The person appears in at least one Master Calendar Hearing and, if they contest removal or seek relief, an Individual (merits) Hearing where the judge decides whether they are removable and whether they qualify for any relief (asylum, cancellation of removal, etc.).
  4. Decision and appeals  If ordered removed, the person can usually appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals (and sometimes to a federal court). If the removal order becomes final, ICE arranges physical removal from the U.S.; if they win relief, they are not removed and may receive some immigration protection instead.

Criminal charges for the underlying conduct (like DUI or theft) are handled separately in criminal courts; immigration proceedings are civil.

What is DHS’s “Worst of the Worst” program and how does DHS select or label cases under it?Expand

DHSs Worst of the Worst initiative is a public-facing branding and database, not a program created by a specific statute. Through the Arrested: Worst of the Worst website (wow.dhs.gov) and related press releases, DHS selects and highlights noncitizens arrested by ICE whom it characterizes as the most serious criminal illegal aliens. Entries typically include the persons name, country of origin, location of arrest, and a list of criminal convictions or charges.

DHS has not published transparent, formal criteria for how it chooses who is listed as worst of the worst. In practice, the site and releases emphasize people with serious or multiple criminal convictions (such as homicide, sexual offenses, gang-related assaults, or serious drug crimes), but independent reviews of the database note that it also includes many individuals with less serious or nonviolent offenses, suggesting that selection is discretionary and driven by agency messaging priorities rather than a codified legal standard.

How does DHS verify the numbers cited in the release ("nearly 470" released and "more than 1,360" in custody) and where can the underlying data be found?Expand

In the Minnesota press releases, DHS states that Governor Walz and Mayor Frey have released nearly 470 criminal illegal aliens and that there are more than 1,360 people with ICE detainers in state custody, but it does not provide the underlying dataset or methodology.

Those figures appear to come from internal ICE tracking of detainer requests and outcomes. Publicly available ICE statistics summarize national and sometimes regional arrests, detainers, and removals, but they do not break out these specific Minnesota counts or link them to decisions by particular state or local officials. Independent media and researchers have noted they cannot verify the 470 and 1,360 numbers against any detailed public database.

As of now, the specific case-level data behind these Minnesota figures are not published, so the numbers in the DHS releases cannot be independently confirmed using public sources.

Comments

Only logged-in users can comment.
Loading…