Diaz Juan v. Lyons, et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
______
OSCAR DIAZ JUAN,
Petitioner,
v.
TODD M. LYONS et al.,
Respondents.
____________________________/
Case No. 1:25-cv-1886
Honorable Jane M. Beckering
OPINION
Petitioner, a United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detainee currently
detained at the North Lake Processing Center located in Baldwin, Lake County, Michigan,
initiated this action by filing a counseled petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241. (Pet., ECF No. 1.) For the following reasons, the Court will conditionally grant Petitioner’s
petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
Discussion
I. 	Procedural History
Petitioner originally filed this action in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio. (Pet., ECF No. 1, Page 2.) In Petitioner’s § 2241 petition, Petitioner challenges
the lawfulness of his current detention and asks the Court to, inter alia, issue a writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 ordering Respondents to release Petitioner or to conduct a
bond hearing for Petitioner’s removal proceedings. (Id., Page 8–9.) In the petition, Petitioner also
sought a temporary restraining order compelling Respondents to release Petitioner or to conduct a
Case 1:25-cv-01886-JMB-MV ECF No. 16, PageID.<pageID> Filed 01/22/26 Page 1
of 6

2
bond hearing. 1 (Id., Page 3.) Pursuant to the parties’ request and agreement, the Southern District
of Ohio transferred the action to this Court on December 23, 2025. (Transfer Order, ECF No. 10.)
In an Order entered on December 30, 2025, the Court directed Respondents to show cause,
within three business days, why the writ of habeas corpus and other relief requested by Petitioner
should not be granted. (Order, ECF No. 14.) Respondents filed their response on January 5, 2026.
(ECF No. 15.) Petitioner did not file a reply.
II. 	Factual Background
Petitioner is a native and citizen of Mexico. (Pet., ECF No. 1, Page 4; Notice to Appear
(NTA), ECF No. 15-2, Page 2.) Petitioner entered the United States in 2006 without inspection.
(Pet., ECF No. 1, Page 4; NTA, ECF No. 15-2, Page 2.) Prior to Petitioner’s present detention, he
resided in Ohio, in a home that he owns, with his wife, three United States citizen children, and
one noncitizen son. (Pet., ECF No. 1, Page 4.)
On October 15, 2025, ICE encountered and arrested Petitioner while executing a search
warrant at his home, “which named other family members.” (Id., Page 5.) At that time, ICE issued
Petitioner a Form I-862, NTA, charging Petitioner with inadmissibility under §§ 212(a)(6)(A)(i)
and 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) of the INA because Petitioner is an immigrant “present in the United States
without being admitted or paroled, or who arrived in the United States at any time or place other
than as designated by the Attorney General,” and “who, at the time of application for admission,
is not in possession of a valid unexpired [immigration or travel document].” (NTA, ECF No. 15-2,
Page 2, 5.) “Petitioner filed a request for custody redetermination with the Immigration Court on
November 21, 2025.” (Pet., ECF No. 1, Page 5.) The Immigration Court denied Petitioner’s request
1 Petitioner also filed a motion for an emergency temporary restraining order. (Mot., ECF No. 7.)
Case 1:25-cv-01886-JMB-MV ECF No. 16, PageID.<pageID> Filed 01/22/26 Page 2
of 6

3
on November 25, 2025, “citing a lack of jurisdiction under the mandatory detention policies of
DHS.” (Id. (citing Ex. A, ECF No. 1-1).)
III. 	Habeas Corpus Legal Standard
The Constitution guarantees that the writ of habeas corpus is “available to every individual
detained within the United States.” Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 525 (2004) (citing U.S.
Const., Art I, § 9, cl. 2). Section 2241 of Title 28 confers the federal courts with the power to issue
writs of habeas corpus to persons “in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of
the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241. This includes challenges by non-citizens in immigration-
related matters. See Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 687 (2001); see also A. A. R. P. v. Trump,
145 S. Ct. 1364, 1367 (2025).
IV. 	Exhaustion
Respondents argue that the Court should deny Petitioner’s request for habeas corpus relief
because Petitioner has not exhausted his administrative remedies by appealing the unfavorable
decision regarding bond to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA).
The Court declines to enforce the doctrine of prudential exhaustion against Petitioner, and
even if the Court were to conclude that exhaustion is warranted, the Court concludes in the
alternative that waiver of exhaustion is appropriate, for the reasons set forth in the Court’s
exhaustion analysis in each of the following cases: Antele Cobix v. Raycraft, No. 1:25-cv-1669,
2025 WL 3562651, at *2–3 (W.D. Mich. Dec. 12, 2025); Candela Bastidas v. Noem, No. 1:25-cv-
1528, 2025 WL 3562638, at *2–4 (W.D. Mich. Dec. 12, 2025); Acuna Sanchez v. Noem, No. 1:25-
cv-1442, 2025 WL 3562577, at *2–4 (W.D. Mich. Dec. 12, 2025); Penagos Robles v. U.S. Dep’t
of Homeland Sec., No. 1:25-cv-1578, 2025 WL 3558128, at *2–3 (W.D. Mich. Dec. 12, 2025).
Accordingly, the Court will proceed to address the merits of Petitioner’s § 2241 petition.
Case 1:25-cv-01886-JMB-MV ECF No. 16, PageID.<pageID> Filed 01/22/26 Page 3
of 6

4
V. 	Merits Discussion
A. 	Statutory Basis for Petitioner’s Detention
Petitioner contends that Respondents have violated the INA by concluding that Petitioner
is detained pursuant to the mandatory detention provisions set forth in 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2).
Respondents, 	however, 	contend 	that Petitioner 	meets 	every 	element 	for 	detention 	under
§ 1225(b)(2), and that the statute’s structure and history support Respondents’ interpretation.
The Court concludes that § 1226(a), not § 1225(b)(2)(A), governs noncitizens, such as
Petitioner, who have resided in the United States and were already within the United States when
apprehended and arrested for the reasons set forth in the Court’s statutory analysis in each of the
following cases: Antele Cobix v. Raycraft, No. 1:25-cv-1669, 2025 WL 3562651, at *3–6 (W.D.
Mich. Dec. 12, 2025); Candela Bastidas v. Noem, No. 1:25-cv-1528, 2025 WL 3562638, at *4–6
(W.D. Mich. Dec. 12, 2025); Acuna Sanchez v. Noem, No. 1:25-cv-1442, 2025 WL 3562577,
at *4–7 (W.D. Mich. Dec. 12, 2025); Penagos Robles v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., No. 1:25-
cv-1578, 2025 WL 3558128, at *3–6 (W.D. Mich. Dec. 12, 2025).
B. 	Fifth Amendment Due Process Considerations
Petitioner also argues that his detention violates the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process
Clause. Respondents counter Petitioner’s arguments by stating that Petitioner has received notice
of the charges against him, has access to counsel, is scheduled to attend hearings with an
immigration judge, has the right to appeal the denial of any request for bond, and has been detained
by ICE for a short period time.
The Court concludes that Petitioner’s current detention under the mandatory detention
framework set forth in § 1225(b)(2)(A) violates Petitioner’s Fifth Amendment due process rights
for the reasons set forth in the Court’s constitutional analysis in each of the following cases:
Antele Cobix v. Raycraft, No. 1:25-cv-1669, 2025 WL 3562651, at *6–8 (W.D. Mich. Dec. 12,
Case 1:25-cv-01886-JMB-MV ECF No. 16, PageID.<pageID> Filed 01/22/26 Page 4
of 6

5
2025); Candela Bastidas v. Noem, No. 1:25-cv-1528, 2025 WL 3562638, at *7–8 (W.D. Mich.
Dec. 12, 2025); Acuna Sanchez v. Noem, No. 1:25-cv-1442, 2025 WL 3562577, at *7–9 (W.D.
Mich. Dec. 12, 2025); Penagos Robles v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., No. 1:25-cv-1578, 2025
WL 3558128, at *6–8 (W.D. Mich. Dec. 12, 2025).
VI. 	Other Claims and Other Forms of Relief
Because the Court will conditionally grant Petitioner’s § 2241 petition as set forth herein,
the Court does not address other claims and other requested relief in Petitioner’s § 2241 petition.
VII. 	Proper Respondents
Petitioner names the Acting Director of ICE, the United States Secretary of Homeland
Security, and the Director of the Executive Office for Immigration Review as Respondents.
Respondents argue that Petitioner has not named a proper Respondent because he did not name
the relevant ICE Field Office Director as a Respondent, and they seek the dismissal of the named
Respondents.
The Court concludes that the relevant ICE Field Office Director is not the only proper
Respondent for the reasons set forth in the Court’s analysis in each of the following cases:
Antele Cobix v. Raycraft, No. 1:25-cv-1669, 2025 WL 3562651, at *8–9 (W.D. Mich. Dec. 12,
2025); Candela Bastidas v. Noem, No. 1:25-cv-1528, 2025 WL 3562638, at *8–9 (W.D. Mich.
Dec. 12, 2025); Acuna Sanchez v. Noem, No. 1:25-cv-1442, 2025 WL 3562577, at *9–10 (W.D.
Mich. Dec. 12, 2025); Penagos Robles v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., No. 1:25-cv-1578, 2025
WL 3558128, at *9–10 (W.D. Mich. Dec. 12, 2025). Therefore, the Court will retain the Acting
Director of ICE and the United States Secretary of Homeland Security as Respondents. The Court
will dismiss the Director of the Executive Office for Immigration Review as a Respondent.
Case 1:25-cv-01886-JMB-MV ECF No. 16, PageID.<pageID> Filed 01/22/26 Page 5
of 6

6
Conclusion
For the reasons discussed above, the Court will enter a Judgment conditionally granting
Petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (ECF No. 1.) The
Court will order Respondents to provide Petitioner with a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a)
within five business days of the date of this Court’s Opinion and Judgment or, in the alternative,
immediately release Petitioner from custody. 2 The Court will also order Respondents to file a
status report within six business days of the date of this Court’s Opinion and Judgment to certify
compliance with this Opinion and the corresponding Judgment. The status report shall include if
and when the bond hearing occurred, if bond was granted or denied, and if bond was granted, the
conditions of the bond, or if bond was denied, the reasons for the denial. Further, the Court will
dismiss the Director of the Executive Office for Immigration Review as a Respondent.
Dated:
Jane M. Beckering
United States District Judge
2 This Court has adopted a standard practice of requiring such a hearing within five business days,
even if the Petitioner requests a deadline that is shorter or longer.
January 22, 2026 	/s/ Jane M. Beckering
Case 1:25-cv-01886-JMB-MV ECF No. 16, PageID.<pageID> Filed 01/22/26 Page 6
of 6