Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

A.A.F.B.,
v .
IN THE U NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
VALDOSTA DIVISION
Petitioner, 	CASE NO:
7: 26-cv-245-WLS-AGH
Warden, IRWIN CO UNTY
DETENTION CENTER,
Respondent.
ORDER
Before the Court is pro se Petitioner's Petition for a Writ of H abeas Corpus Under 28
U .S.C. § 2241 (ECF No . 1) ("Petition"). On September 21 , 2026, Respondent filed a response
in opposition to the petition (ECF No . 7) . Respondent concedes that Petitioner is detained
under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and thus entitled to a bond hearing. 	R esp't Resp . 3, E CF No . 7.
H owever, Respondent argues that tl1e Petition should be denied because Petitioner did not
request a bond hearing before an Immigration Judge (''IJ") before filing his Petition. 	Id at
3-4.
Because Petitioner is detained under 8 U .S.C. § 1226(a), this case involves the same
issues raised in]A .M. v. S treeval, No . 4:25- CV-342-C DL, 2025 WL 3050094 (M.D . Ga . Nov. 1,
2025) and P.RS. v. S treeval, No . 4:25-cv-330-C DL, 2025 WL 3269947 (M.D . Ga . Nov. 24,
2025). In those cases, the Court concluded that for noncitizens " who are found in the country
unlawfully and are arrested" without hav ing been inspected by an examining immigration
officer, then " an immigration officer or immigration judge has the discretion" under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1226(a) to grant them release on bond unless a statutory exception applies under 8 U .S.C. §
1226(c). JA.M., 2025 WL 3050094, at *3; P .R.S., 2025 \TI 3269947, at *1-*2. 	Mandatory
detention under 8 U .S.C. § 1225(6)(2) "is not autl10rized" in such cases. 	P.RS., 2025 WL
3269947, at *2. S ee H ernande z A lvare z v. W arden, Fed D et. Ct r. , 175 F.4th 1258, 1281 (11th Cir.
2026) (finding 8 U.S.C. § 1225(6)(2) only applies to tl10se aliens "who have not y et entered the
United States but are 'seeking admission' at the border").
1
Case 7:26-cv-00245-WLS-AGH Document 9 Filed 10/08/26 Page 1 of 2

As to exhaustion in a § 2241 proceeding, the E leventh Circuit has stated:
It is no longer the law of this circuit that exhaustion of administrative remedies
is a jurisdictional requirement in a § 2241 proceeding. Of course, th at do es n ot
mean that courts mqy dis regard a f ailure to exhaust and grant relief on the merits if t he
respo ndent proper!J 	asserts the defe nse. The 	exhaustion 	requirement is 	still a
requirement; it's just not a jurisdictional one. What its non -jurisdictional nature
means is that a court need not inquire into exhaustion on its own . .A court has
the discretion to accept or reject a concession from the respondent that
administrative remedies have been exhausted . .And because exhaustion is non-
jurisdictional, even when the defense has been preserved and asserted by the
respondent throughout the proceeding, a court may skip over the exhaustion
issue if it is easier to deny (n ot grant, of course, but deny) the petition on the merits
without reaching the exhaustion question.
Santiago-Lugo v. W a rden, 785 F.3d 467, 474-75 ( 11th Cir. 2015) (modified). As noted above,
R espondent objects to the P etition on the basis that P etitioner failed to exhaust his available
remedies before an I mmigration Judge . B ased on Santiago-Lugo and P etitioner's failure to
exhaust remedies before an I mmigration Judge, the Court fi nds the P etitioner must first
exhaust his available remedies by requesting a bond hearing before an I mmigration Judge .
Accordingly, the P etition for a Writ of H abeas Corpus Under 28 U .S.C. § 2241 (ECF
No . 1) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE a nd DISMISSED . In the in t erest of judicial
effici ency and based upon the rationale ofJA.M. and P.RS., any bond hearing requested by
P etitioner shall comport with all requirements of due process, including the requiremen t that
the Department of H omeland Security shall bear the burden of establishing by clear and
convincing evidence that P etitioner is either a danger to the community or a flight risk. See ]. G.
v. W arden, Invin Cnty. Det. Ctr., 501 F. Supp. 3d 1331, 1335 (M.D . Ga . 2020).
SO ORDERED , this 8th day of October 2026 .
/s / 	W. Louis Sands
W . LO U IS SANDS , SR. JU DGE
U NITED STATES DISTRICT CO U RT
2
Case 7:26-cv-00245-WLS-AGH Document 9 Filed 10/08/26 Page 2 of 2