Ding v. Noem et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
______
JIE DING,
Petitioner,
v.
KRISTI NOEM et al.,
Respondents.
____________________________/
Case No. 1:26-cv-780
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 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, he challenges the constitutionality of his current detention
following an order issued by the Detroit Immigration Court denying him bond, 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 provide Petitioner with a bond hearing where the government bears the burden
of proof by clear and convincing evidence that Petitioner is a flight risk or danger to the
community. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.7.) In an order entered on March 18, 2026, the Court directed
Respondents to show cause, within three business days, why the writ of habeas corpus should not
Case 1:26-cv-00780-JMB-RSK ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 03/30/26 Page 1
of 3

2
be granted. (Order, ECF No. 4.) Respondents filed their response on March 23, 2026. (ECF No.
5.)
II. 	Factual Background
Petitioner is a citizen of China who entered the United States in September 2024. (Pet.,
ECF No. 1, PageID.3.) On October 23, 2025, Petitioner was arrested by ICE agents. Op., Ding v.
Noem (Ding I), No. 1:26-cv-159 (W.D. Feb. 17, 2026), (ECF No. 6).
On January 15, 2026, Petitioner filed a § 2241 petition challenging his initial detention
without a bond hearing in Ding I. In Ding I, the Court conditionally granted Petitioner’s petition
for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, ordering Respondents to provide
Petitioner with a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within five business days of the date of
the Court’s Opinion and Judgment or, in the alternative, immediately release Petitioner from
custody. Op. & Jud., Ding I, (W.D. Feb. 17, 2026), (ECF Nos. 6, 7).
On February 24, 2026, Petitioner received a bond hearing pursuant to § 1226(a).
(Immigration Judge Order, ECF No. 1-1, PageID.10.) At the conclusion of the February 24, 2026,
hearing, the immigration judge denied Petitioner’s request for bond. (Id.) In her written order,
Immigration Judge Ellen Karesh opined: “The burden of proof lies with the Respondent to
establish eligibility for bond and individuals must demonstrate they do not pose a danger or flight
risk.” (Id.) She further explained: “Respondent has not met his burden; therefore, the Court finds
that Respondent is a flight risk and therefore denies his request for bond reconsideration.” (Id.)
III. 	Analysis
Respondents argue that the Court should deny Petitioner’s § 2241 petition due to a lack of
jurisdiction and Petitioner’s failure to exhaust Petitioner’s administrative remedies, as well as on
the merits. The Court has fully addressed these issues and Respondents’ arguments in Soto-Medina
v. Lynch, No. 1:25-cv-1704, --- F. Supp. 3d ----, 2026 WL 161002, at *2 (W.D. Mich. Jan. 21,
Case 1:26-cv-00780-JMB-RSK ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 03/30/26 Page 2
of 3

3
2026). Therefore, for the reasons set forth in Soto-Medina, the Court will conditionally grant
Petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
IV. 	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.
Conclusion
The Court will order Respondents to provide Petitioner with an individualized bond
hearing before a neutral immigration judge, at which time the government will have the burden to
demonstrate dangerousness or flight risk by clear and convincing evidence, within five business
days and with notice to the Parties as soon as practicable, no later than 24 hours prior to the
scheduled hearing, or, in the alternative, immediately release Petitioner from custody. 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.
Dated: 	March 30, 2026 	/s/ Jane M. Beckering
Jane M. Beckering
United States District Judge
Case 1:26-cv-00780-JMB-RSK ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 03/30/26 Page 3
of 3