Matos Perez v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
______
RUBI MATOS PEREZ,
Petitioner,
v.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY et al.,
Respondents.
____________________________/
Case No. 1:26-cv-661
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 by filing a pro se 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 dismiss Petitioner’s petition for a writ
of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 without prejudice.
Discussion
I. 	Procedural History
In Petitioner’s § 2241 petition, Petitioner challenges the lawfulness of her 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.5.)
In an order entered on March 3, 2026, the Court directed Respondents to show cause, within
three business days, why the writ of habeas corpus and other relief requested by Petitioner should
Case 1:26-cv-00661-PLM-SJB ECF No. 9, PageID.<pageID> Filed 03/19/26 Page 1
of 4

2
not be granted. (Order, ECF No. 5.) Respondents filed their response on March 6, 2026. (ECF
No. 7.)
II. 	Factual Background
Petitioner is a native and citizen of Dominican Republic. (Notice to Appear (NTA), ECF
No. 7-1, PageID.44.) Petitioner was admitted to the United States as a “nonimmigrant Visitor for
Pleasure” on February 13, 2025, with authorization to remain in the United States until August 12,
2025. (Id.) Petitioner remained in the United States after that authorization ended. (Id.) Petitioner
has no criminal history. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.3.)
In January 2026, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) agents arrested Petitioner. (Pet.,
ECF No. 1, PageID.2.) Thereafter, DHS issued Petitioner a Form I-862, NTA, charging Petitioner
as subject to removal under § 237(a)(1)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) because,
after being admitted as a nonimmigrant, Petitioner remained in the United States for a time longer
than permitted. (NTA, ECF No. 7-1, PageID.44.) Petitioner was scheduled to appear before the
Detroit Immigration Court for a master hearing on March 10, 2026. 1 (Notice of Internet-Based
Hearing, ECF No. 7-3.)
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-
1 The parties do not provide any other information about the March 10, 2026, hearing.
Case 1:26-cv-00661-PLM-SJB ECF No. 9, PageID.<pageID> Filed 03/19/26 Page 2
of 4

3
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. 	Discussion
Noncitizens “who are held in custody under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), while their petitions for
review of their removal orders are pending, are entitled to a bond hearing before an immigration
judge.” Leonardo v. Crawford, 646 F.3d 1157, 1160 (9th Cir. 2011) (citation omitted); see, e.g.,
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).
Petitioner asserts that she is detained without being informed of the statutory basis for that
detention. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.4.) Petitioner asks the Court to, inter alia, order Respondents
to release Petitioner from custody or conduct a bond hearing. (Id., PageID.5.) Respondents,
through counsel, acknowledge that § 1226 governs Petitioner’s present detention because she
overstayed her visa after being lawfully admitted to the United States. (Resp., ECF No. 4,
PageID.38–39.) There is no indication in the record presently before the Court that Petitioner has
requested a bond hearing under § 1226(a) in Immigration Court. In light of Respondents’
concession that Petitioner’s detention is governed by § 1226(a), meaning that, if requested,
Respondents would provide Petitioner with a § 1226(a) bond hearing, which is the relief that
Petitioner seeks in this action, the Court will dismiss this action without prejudice. 2
2 If Petitioner requests a bond hearing in Immigration Court and Respondents do not in fact provide
Petitioner with a § 1226(a) bond hearing where the Immigration Judge concludes that he or she
has jurisdiction to consider the bond request, then Petitioner would be free to file a new § 2241
Case 1:26-cv-00661-PLM-SJB ECF No. 9, PageID.<pageID> Filed 03/19/26 Page 3
of 4

4
V. 	Conclusion
For the reasons discussed above, the Court will enter a judgment dismissing Petitioner’s
petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 without prejudice.
Dated: 	March 19, 2026 	/s/ Paul L. Maloney
Paul L. Maloney
United States District Judge
petition requesting that this Court order Respondents to provide Petitioner with a § 1226(a) bond
hearing.
Case 1:26-cv-00661-PLM-SJB ECF No. 9, PageID.<pageID> Filed 03/19/26 Page 4
of 4