Rico-Espino v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
______
ALEJANDRO RICO-ESPINO,
Petitioner,
v.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY et al.,
Respondents.
____________________________/
Case No. 1:26-cv-26
Honorable Paul L. Maloney
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 on January 5, 2026, by filing a counseled petition for a 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
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 either
ordering Respondents to release Petitioner or ordering Respondents to conduct a bond hearing to
satisfy the requirements of due process. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.8–9.)
In an order entered on January 8, 2026, the Court directed Respondents to show cause,
within three business days, why the writ of habeas corpus and other relief requested by Petitioner
Case 1:26-cv-00026-PLM-RSK ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/03/26 Page 1
of 6

2
should not be granted. (Order, ECF No. 3.) Respondents filed their response on January 13, 2026,
(ECF No. 4), and Petitioner filed his reply on January 16, 2026, (ECF No. 5).
II. 	Factual Background
Petitioner is a native and citizen of Mexico. (Notice to Appear (NTA), ECF No. 1-3,
PageID.15.) Petitioner entered the United States in March 2024 at or near Nogales, Arizona,
without being “admitted or paroled.” (Id.) Shortly thereafter, Department of Homeland Security
(DHS) agents encountered Petitioner, and at that time, DHS issued Petitioner a Form I-862, NTA,
charging 	Petitioner 	with 	inadmissibility 	under 	§ 212(a)(6)(A)(i) 	of 	the 	Immigration 	and
Nationality Act (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.” (Id.) Petitioner was subsequently released on his own
recognizance. (Order of Release on Recognizance, ECF No. 4-1, PageID.48.) Prior to Petitioner’s
present detention, he resided in Illinois. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.2.)
On an unspecified date, ICE agents detained Petitioner and sent him to the North Lake
Processing Center. (Id., PageID.5.) Petitioner requested a custody redetermination. (Order of the
Immigration Judge, ECF No. 1-2, PageID.13.) In an order entered on December 19, 2025, the
Detroit Immigration Court found that it lacked the authority to hear the bond request because
Petitioner is subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A). (Id.) Petitioner has
no criminal history and a pending asylum application. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.2.)
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
Case 1:26-cv-00026-PLM-RSK ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/03/26 Page 2
of 6

3
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. Specifically, Respondents argue
that Petitioner must appeal the immigration judge’s order 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.
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.
Case 1:26-cv-00026-PLM-RSK ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/03/26 Page 3
of 6

4
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, has appeared before an immigration judge, is
scheduled to attend additional hearings with an immigration judge, has the right to appeal the
denial of any request for bond, and has been detained by ICE for less than three months.
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,
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).
Case 1:26-cv-00026-PLM-RSK ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/03/26 Page 4
of 6

5
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
Respondents argue that the Detroit ICE Field Office Director is the only proper Respondent
in this action, and they seek the dismissal of all of the other named Respondents.1 The Court
concludes that the ICE Detroit Field Office Director is not the only proper Respondent for the
reasons set forth in the Court’s analysis of the same argument 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).
To ensure that this Court’s orders regarding a hearing or release will bind at least one
Respondent with authority to act in the event that Petitioner is transferred out of the Western
District of Michigan, the Court will retain the ICE Detroit Field Office Director and the Secretary
for the Department of Homeland Security as Respondents. The Court will dismiss the U.S.
Department of Homeland Security and the United States Attorney General as Respondents.
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
1 The Court previously dismissed the Warden of North Lake Processing Center as a Respondent.
(Order, ECF No. 3.)
Case 1:26-cv-00026-PLM-RSK ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/03/26 Page 5
of 6

6
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 U.S. Department of Homeland Security and the United States Attorney General as
Respondents.
Dated: 	February 3, 2026 	/s/Paul L. Maloney
Paul L. Maloney
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.
Case 1:26-cv-00026-PLM-RSK ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/03/26 Page 6
of 6