Gueye v. Mullin et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
______
IBOU LAYE GUEYE,
Petitioner,
v.
MARKWAYNE MULLIN et al.,
Respondents.
____________________________/
Case No. 1:26-cv-1631
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.) The Court grants Petitioner leave to proceed in forma pauperis. For the
following reasons, the Court will deny Petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2241 without prejudice.
I. 	Procedural History
In Petitioner’s § 2241 petition, Petitioner 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 ordering Respondents to release Petitioner or
provide Petitioner with another bond hearing. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.3.)
In an Order entered on June 1, 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
not be granted. (Order, ECF No. 6.) Respondents filed their response and a recording of
Case 1:26-cv-01631-JMB-PJG ECF No. 10, PageID.<pageID> Filed 06/11/26 Page 1
of 3

2
Petitioner’s February 24, 2026, bond hearing on June 4, 2026. (Resp., ECF No. 7; Recording of
Feb. 24, 2026, Bond Hearing, filed on June 4, 2026.)
II. 	Relevant Factual Background
Petitioner is a citizen of Senegal who entered the United States in 2023. (Pet., ECF No. 1,
PageID.2.) In August of 2025, Petitioner was arrested by ICE. (Id.) On December 12, 2025, the
Cleveland Immigration Court denied Petitioner’s asylum application and ordered that Petitioner
be removed to Senegal. (Dec. 12, 2025, Order Immigration Judge, ECF No. 7-1.) On January 8,
2026, Petitioner appealed the removal order to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). (Filing
Receipt, ECF No. 7-1.) 1
On February 24, 2026, Petitioner received a bond hearing in the Detroit Immigration Court
pursuant to § 1226(a). (See Feb. 24, 2026, Order Immigration Judge, ECF No. 7-3.) At the
conclusion of the bond hearing, in a written order, the Immigration Judge denied bond, stating:
“flight risk.” (Id., PageID.39.)
III. 	Discussion
In Petitioner’s § 2241 petition, Petitioner argues that the Immigration Judge improperly
concluded “that he was a danger to the community”2 and did not apply the constitutionally required
burden of proof at Petitioner’s § 1226(a) bond hearing on February 24, 2026. (Pet., ECF No. 1,
1 In Respondents’ response, which they filed on June 4, 2026, Respondents indicate that
Petitioner’s appeal to the BIA remains pending (Resp., ECF No. 7, PageID.15), and at the February
24, 2026, bond hearing, the Immigration Judge indicated that Petitioner’s appeal of the removal
order was pending. (Recording of Feb. 24, 2026, Bond Hearing, filed on June 4, 2026.) Therefore,
based on the information presented by the parties in this action, there is no indication in the record
before the Court that Petitioner’s removal order is administratively final.
2 As set forth above, the Immigration Judge denied Petitioner’s request for a bond, concluding that
Petitioner was a flight risk, rather than a danger to the community. (See Feb. 24, 2026, Order
Immigration Judge, ECF No. 7-3.)
Case 1:26-cv-01631-JMB-PJG ECF No. 10, PageID.<pageID> Filed 06/11/26 Page 2
of 3

3
PageID.2); see Soto-Medina v. Lynch, 817 F. Supp. 3d 612 (W.D. Mich. 2026) (addressing the
constitutionally required burden of proof).
Based on the record before the Court at this time, including the recording of the § 1226(a)
bond hearing, there is no indication in the record that the Immigration Judge applied an
unconstitutional burden of proof at the bond hearing. Under these circumstances, the Court will
deny Petitioner’s § 2241 petition without prejudice.
Conclusion
For the reasons discussed above, the Court will enter a Judgment denying Petitioner’s
petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 without prejudice.
Dated: 	June 11, 2026 	/s/ Jane M. Beckering
Jane M. Beckering
United States District Judge
Case 1:26-cv-01631-JMB-PJG ECF No. 10, PageID.<pageID> Filed 06/11/26 Page 3
of 3