Martinez v. Unknown Party et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
______
ANTONIO TOLEDO MARTINEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
UNKNOWN PARTY et al.,
Respondents.
____________________________/
Case No. 1:25-cv-1298
Honorable Paul L. Maloney
OPINION
Petitioner initiated this action on October 25, 2025, by filing a counseled petition for writ
of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Petition, ECF No. 1.) Petitioner is a United States
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detainee currently detained at the North Lake
Processing Center located in Baldwin, Lake County, Michigan.
Petitioner challenges the lawfulness of his current detention and asks the Court to, inter
alia, accept jurisdiction over this action, declare that Respondents’ actions to detain Petitioner
violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and the Immigration and Nationality Act,
issue a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 ordering Respondents to immediately
release Petitioner, and award attorneys’ fees and costs for this action. (Id., PageID.8.) 1 For the
1 In his petition, Petitioner also sought a temporary restraining order to prevent the transfer of
Petitioner out of this district during the pendency of the action, and Petitioner asked the Court to
order Respondents to show cause, within three days, why the petition should not be granted.
(Petition, ECF No. 1, PageID.1, 11.) In an order entered on October 28, 2025, 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. 3.) Respondents filed their
response on October 31, 2025, (ECF No. 4), and Petitioner filed his reply on November 6, 2025,
(ECF No. 5). Thereafter, counsel for Petitioner paid the applicable filing fee on November 12,
2025. As to Petitioner’s request for a temporary restraining order, because the Court will
Case 1:25-cv-01298-PLM-MV ECF No. 9, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/19/25 Page 1
of 16

2
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. 	Factual Allegations
Petitioner is a native and citizen of Mexico. (Petition, ECF No. 1, PageID.4; Hughley Decl.
¶ 4, ECF No. 4-1, PageID.42.) “Petitioner entered the United States in 2002 without inspection or
admission.” (Petition, ECF No. 1, PageID.4.) On October 1, 2025, ICE Enforcement and Removal
Operations (ERO) “arrested [Petitioner] after encountering him near Chicago, Illinois.” (Hughley
Decl. ¶ 5, ECF No. 4-1, PageID.42.) “ICE ERO served [Petitioner] with a Form I-200, Warrant
for Arrest of Alien, and a Form I-862, Notice to Appear (NTA).” (Id.) Petitioner was charged with
inadmissibility pursuant to § 212(a)(6)(A)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA)
because Petitioner “is an immigrant who is present in the United States without having been
admitted or paroled, or who arrived at a time or place not designated by the Attorney General,”
and pursuant to “[§] 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) for being an immigrant who, at the time of application for
admission, is not in possession of valid immigration and travel documents.” (Id., PageID.42–43.)
Respondents contend that Petitioner is presently detained without bond under § 235 of the
INA on the basis that he “is seeking admission and he is not clearly and beyond doubt entitled to
admission.” (Id. ¶ 6, PageID.43.) Respondents report that Petitioner “is currently in removal
proceedings on the detained docket before the Detroit Immigration Court,” and an initial master
calendar hearing was scheduled for November 3, 2025. (Id. ¶ 7.)
conditionally grant Petitioner’s § 2241 petition, as set forth herein, the Court does not, and need
not, separately address Petitioner’s motion for a temporary restraining order.
Case 1:25-cv-01298-PLM-MV ECF No. 9, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/19/25 Page 2
of 16

3
II. 	Exhaustion
Respondents first contend that the Court should deny Petitioner’s request for habeas corpus
relief because Petitioner has not requested a bond hearing before the immigration court and,
therefore, has not exhausted his administrative remedies. (Resp., ECF No. 4, PageID.19.)
Respondents argue that Petitioner should request a bond hearing and, if necessary, appeal any
unfavorable decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). (Id.)
Here, no applicable statute or rule mandates administrative exhaustion by Petitioner. Thus,
whether to require exhaustion is within this Court’s “sound judicial discretion.” See Shearson v.
Holder, 725 F.3d 588, 593–94 (6th Cir. 2013) (quoting McCarthy v. Madigan, 503 U.S. 140, 144
(1992)). “Courts have described an implied requirement to raise issues with an agency as a ‘judge-
made,’ ‘prudential,’ or ‘common law’ duty to exhaust,” Island Creek Coal Co. v. Bryan, 937 F.3d
738, 746 (6th Cir. 2019) (citations omitted), and such a court-made exhaustion rule must comply
with statutory schemes and Congressional intent, Shearson, 725 F.3d at 593–94. Notably, the
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has not yet decided “whether courts should
impose administrative exhaustion in the context of a noncitizen’s habeas petition for unlawful
mandatory detention,” Pizarro Reyes v. Raycraft, No. 25-cv-12546, 2025 WL 2609425, at *3 (E.D.
Mich. Sept. 9, 2025) (citing Hernandez Torrealba v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., No. 1:25-cv-
1621, 2025 WL 2444114, at *8 (N.D. Ohio Aug. 25, 2025)), and “[t]he Sixth Circuit has not
formally adopted a standard for determining when prudential exhaustion applies.” Lopez-Campos
v. Raycraft, No. 2:25-cv-12486, 2025 WL 2496379, at *4 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 29, 2025). However,
courts within the Sixth Circuit “have applied the three-factor test, set forth in United States v.
California Care Corp., 709 F.2d 1241, 1248 (9th Cir. 1983) (derived from McGee v. United States,
Case 1:25-cv-01298-PLM-MV ECF No. 9, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/19/25 Page 3
of 16

4
402 U.S. 479, 484[ (1971)]; McKart v. United States, 395 U.S. 185, 193–95[ (1969)),]” to
determine whether prudential exhaustion should be required. Id. Under this three-factor test,
Courts may require prudential exhaustion when:
(1) agency expertise makes agency consideration necessary to generate a proper
record and reach a proper decision;
(2) relaxation of the requirement would encourage the deliberate bypass of the
administrative scheme; and
(3) administrative review is likely to allow the agency to correct its own mistakes
and to preclude the need for judicial review.
Id. (citing Shweika v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., No. 1:06-cv-11781, 2015 WL 6541689, at *12
(E.D. Mich. Oct. 29, 2015)).
Upon consideration of these factors, this Court concludes that prudential exhaustion should
not be required in Petitioner’s case. First, the central question presented by Petitioner’s § 2241
petition is whether 8 U.S.C. § 1225 or 8 U.S.C. § 1226 applies to Petitioner. That determination
relies upon a purely legal question of statutory interpretation and does not require the record that
would be developed should the Court require Petitioner to exhaust his administrative remedies.
Moreover, this Court is not bound by, and is not required to give deference to, any agency
interpretation of a statute. See Loper Bright Enter. v. Raimondo, 144 S. Ct. 2244, 2273 (2024)
(discussing that “courts need not and under the [Administrative Procedure Act (APA)] may not
defer to an agency interpretation of the law simply because a statute is ambiguous”).
Second, Petitioner’s constitutional challenge to his detention does not require exhaustion.
The Sixth Circuit has noted that due process challenges, such as the one raised by Petitioner, which
are not premised on “correctable procedural errors,” generally do not require exhaustion because
the BIA cannot review constitutional challenges. See Sterkaj v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 273, 279 (6th
Cir. 2006) (discussing that “an alien’s due process challenge generally does not require
Case 1:25-cv-01298-PLM-MV ECF No. 9, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/19/25 Page 4
of 16

5
exhaustion,” but noting that an “alien must raise correctable procedural errors,” such as a claim
“that the BIA denied him due process by relying upon an ‘incomplete and inaccurate’ transcript to
review his case,” “to the BIA”). Finally, it is doubtful that BIA review of Petitioner’s custody
would preclude the need for judicial review. The Court reaches that conclusion based upon the fact
that the Government has clearly set forth its belief that § 1225(b)(1)(A) applies to all noncitizens
who have resided within the United States prior to their arrest and detention. Notably, the BIA
recently proclaimed that any individual who has ever entered the United States unlawfully and was
later detained is no longer eligible for bond and is subject to mandatory detention under
§ 1225(b)(2)(A). See Matter of Yajure Hurtado, 29 I&N Dec. 216, 229 (BIA 2025). If Petitioner
were to request a bond hearing before an immigration judge, that request would likely be denied
given the BIA’s recent decision in Yajure Hurtado. Moreover, it is simply unlikely that any
administrative review by the BIA of that denial would lead the Government to change its position,
and thereby obviate the need for judicial review of Petitioner’s § 2241 petition. Accordingly, for
the foregoing reasons, this Court concludes that prudential exhaustion is not required.
Alternatively, even in situations where a court may ordinarily apply prudential exhaustion,
the court may still choose to waive exhaustion. See Lopez-Campos, 2025 WL 2496379, at *4
(citations omitted). A court may choose to rule upon the merits of the issues presented when the
“legal question is ‘fit’ for resolution and delay means hardship.” Shalala v. Ill. Council on Long
Term Care, Inc., 529 U.S. 1, 13 (2000) (citation omitted). A court may also waive exhaustion if
the “pursuit of administrative remedies would be a futile gesture.” Shearson, 725 F.3d at 594
(citation omitted).
Here, it is clear that delay would result in hardship to Petitioner. First, as noted above,
Petitioner would need to request a bond hearing before an immigration judge. There is no evidence
Case 1:25-cv-01298-PLM-MV ECF No. 9, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/19/25 Page 5
of 16

6
in the record as to how long Petitioner would have to wait until such a hearing, if any, were
scheduled. Petitioner’s request would likely be denied given the BIA’s recent decision in Yajure
Hurtado. Then, Petitioner would have the opportunity to appeal any unfavorable decision to the
BIA. Appeals of bond denials “typically take six months or more to be resolved at the BIA.” See
Rodriguez v. Bostock, 779 F. Supp. 3d 1239, 1245 (W.D. Wash. 2025) (citation omitted).
As set forth above, Petitioner was scheduled to appear before the immigration court for a
master calendar hearing on November 3, 2025. However, the record is silent as to when Petitioner
will be scheduled for his final merits hearing. It is possible that a determination from the BIA as
to whether Petitioner is entitled to bond would come before any final decision regarding removal.
Nevertheless, it is “unmistakable that . . . depriving [Petitioner] of his liberty while awaiting a BIA
appeal decision certainly equates to hardship. And any delay results in the very harm [Petitioner]
is trying to avoid . . . – detention.” See Lopez-Campos, 2025 WL 2496379, at *5.
In sum, the Court declines to enforce the doctrine of prudential exhaustion against
Petitioner. Moreover, even if the Court were to conclude that exhaustion is warranted, the Court
concludes in the alternative that waiver of exhaustion is appropriate. Accordingly, the Court will
proceed to address the merits of Petitioner’s § 2241 petition.
III. 	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).
(See 	Petition, 	ECF 	No. 	1, 	PageID.6–7.) 	Respondents, 	however, 	contend 	that 	Petitioner
“unambiguously meets every element for detention under § 1225(b)(2).” (Resp., ECF No. 4,
PageID.22.)
Case 1:25-cv-01298-PLM-MV ECF No. 9, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/19/25 Page 6
of 16

7
Section 1225(b)(2)(A) provides that
. . . in the case of an alien who is an applicant for admission, if the examining
immigration officer determines that an alien seeking admission is not clearly and
beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted, the alien shall be detained for a proceeding
under section 1229a of this title.
8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A). And, § 1226(a) states that “[o]n a warrant issued by the Attorney
General, an alien may be arrested and detained pending a decision on whether the alien is to be
removed from the United States.” Id. § 1226(a). The plain language of these provisions indicates
that both § 1225 and § 1226 govern the detention of noncitizens pending removal proceedings.
The difference is that § 1225 provides for mandatory detention and § 1226 allows for the release
of the noncitizen on conditional parole or bond. As explained below, the Court concludes that
§ 1226(a), not § 1225(b)(2)(A), applies to noncitizens, such as Petitioner, who have resided in the
United States and were already within the United States when apprehended and arrested.
“A statute should be construed so that effect is given to all its provisions.” Hibbs v. Winn,
542 U.S. 88, 101 (2004) (citation omitted); see Corley v. United States, 556 U.S. 303, 314 (2009);
see also Kentucky v. Biden, 23 F.4th 585, 603 (6th Cir. 2022) (noting that courts “must give effect
to the clear meaning of statutes as written” (citation omitted)). “When interpreting a statute, the
inquiry ‘begins with the statutory text, and ends there as well if the text is unambiguous.’” See In
re Vill. Apothecary, Inc., 45 F.4th 940, 947 (6th Cir. 2022) (citation omitted)). But, “the
‘meaning—or ambiguity—of certain words or phrases may only become evident when placed in
context.’” King v. Burwell, 576 U.S. 473, 486 (2015) (citation omitted). “[T]he words of a statute
must be read in their context and with a view to their place in the overall statutory scheme.” Roberts
v. Sea-Land Servs., Inc., 566 U.S. 93, 101 (2012) (citation omitted). The Court must also “use
every tool at [its] disposal to determine the best reading of the statute.” Loper Bright Enter. v.
Raimondo, 144 S. Ct. 2244, 2266 (2024).
Case 1:25-cv-01298-PLM-MV ECF No. 9, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/19/25 Page 7
of 16

8
As set forth above, § 1225(b)(2)(A) provides for the detention “of an alien who is an
applicant for admission, if the examining immigration officer determines that an alien seeking
admission is not clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted.” 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A).
An “applicant for admission” is defined as “[a]n alien present in the United States who has not
been admitted or who arrives in the United States . . . .” See id. § 1225(a)(1). The INA further
defines “admission” and “admitted” as “the lawful entry of the alien into the United States after
inspection and authorization by an immigration officer.” See id. § 1101(a)(13). “Section 1226(a)
is less specific,” Pizarro Reyes v. Raycraft, No. 25-cv-12546, 2025 WL 2609425, at *4 (E.D. Mich.
Sept. 9, 2025), and states that “[o]n a warrant issued by the Attorney General, an alien may be
arrested and detained pending a decision on whether the alien is to be removed from the United
States.” See 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a).
“[T]he statutory text does not provide a definitive answer as to what it means to be present
without admittance where, as here, the individual has already entered and spent [time] living in
the United States.” Pizarro Reyes, 2025 WL 2609425, at *5. And, even if the terms of § 1225 seem
unambiguous when viewed in isolation, “courts are to interpret the words of a statute in context.”
Hibbs, 542 U.S. at 101 (citation omitted); see Yates v. United States, 574 U.S. 528, 537 (2015)
(“Whether a statutory term is unambiguous, however, does not turn solely on dictionary definitions
of its component words. Rather, ‘[t]he plainness or ambiguity of statutory language is determined
[not only] by reference to the language itself, [but as well by] the specific context in which that
language is used, and the broader context of the statute as a whole.’” (alterations in original)
(citations omitted)).
Section 1225 is titled, “Inspection by immigration officers; expedited removal of
inadmissible arriving aliens; referral for hearing.” 8 U.S.C. § 1225. A title, such as this “is
Case 1:25-cv-01298-PLM-MV ECF No. 9, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/19/25 Page 8
of 16

9
especially valuable [where] it reinforces what the text’s nouns and verbs independently suggest.”
Yates, 574 U.S. at 552 (Alito, J., concurring). Additionally, Congress’s decision to include the
word “arriving,” as well as the decision to include references to methods of physical arrival, such
as “stowaways” and “crewm[e]n,” in § 1225 evidences an intent to address noncitizens arriving
“at a border or port of entry.” Pizarro Reyes, 2025 WL 2609425, at *5. In contrast, § 1226 is titled,
“Apprehension and detention of aliens.” 8 U.S.C. § 1226. “That Congress separated removal of
arriving aliens[, as set forth in § 1225,] from its more general section for ‘Apprehension and
detention of aliens,’ [as set forth in] § 1226, implies that Congress enacted § 1225 for a specific,
limited purpose.” Pizarro Reyes, 2025 WL 2609425, at *5 (citing Dubin v. United States, 143 S.
Ct. 1557, 1567–68 (2023)).
Further, in Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281 (2018), the United States Supreme Court
discussed that § 1225 is part of the “process of decision [that] generally begins at the Nation’s
borders and ports of entry, where the Government must determine whether an alien seeking to
enter the country is admissible.” Jennings, 583 U.S. at 287. The United States Supreme Court
stated that, in contrast, “[s]ection 1226 generally governs the process of arresting and detaining
. . . aliens [already living within the United States] pending their removal.” Id. at 288. Thus, in
Jennings, the United States Supreme Court differentiated between noncitizens initially arriving to
the United States who are governed by § 1225, and noncitizens already present in the country who
are governed by § 1226. See id. at 288–89.
Moreover, the Court cannot ignore Congressional intent when conducting statutory
analysis. Recently, Congress passed the Laken Riley Act, which amended § 1226 to prescribe a
subset of noncitizens who are exempt from the discretionary bond analysis. Specifically, the Act
added a subsection that explicitly mandates detention for those noncitizens who are inadmissible
Case 1:25-cv-01298-PLM-MV ECF No. 9, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/19/25 Page 9
of 16

10
under §§ 1182(a)(6)(A), 1182(a)(6)(C), and 1182(a)(7), and who have been arrested for, charged
with, or convicted of certain crimes. See 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c)(1)(E). Quite simply, were the Court
to agree with Respondents’ interpretation of §§ 1225 and 1226, § 1226(c)(1)(E) would be rendered
entirely superfluous.
Here, Petitioner has been present in the United States since 2002. (Petition, ECF No. 1,
PageID.4.) Thus, Petitioner is a noncitizen who is already present in the United States, meaning
that “[s]ection 1226 generally governs.” Jennings, 583 U.S. at 288. Petitioner is not a noncitizen
just arriving to the United States, meaning he is not part of the “process of decision [that] generally
begins at the Nation’s borders and ports of entry, where the Government must determine whether
an alien seeking to [initially] enter the country is admissible.” Id. at 287 (discussing the
applicability of § 1225).
Accordingly, for the above-discussed reasons, 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.2
2 The Court has recently reached the same conclusion in a number of other habeas corpus actions
filed by immigration detainees. See, e.g., Salgado Mendoza v. Noem, No. 1:25-cv-1252, 2025 WL
3077589, at *6 (W.D. Mich. Nov. 4, 2025); Ruiz Mejia v. Noem, No. 1:25-cv-1227, 2025 WL
3041827, at *5–6 (W.D. Mich. Oct. 31, 2025); De Jesus Ramirez v. Noem, No. 1:25-cv-1261, 2025
WL 3039266, at *5 (W.D. Mich. Oct. 31, 2025); Escobar-Ruiz v. Raycraft, No. 1:25-cv-1232,
2025 WL 3039255, at *5 (W.D. Mich. Oct. 31, 2025); Marin Garcia v. Noem, No. 1:25-cv-1271,
2025 WL 3017200, at *5 (W.D. Mich. Oct. 29, 2025); Cervantes Rodriguez v. Noem, No. 1:25-
cv-1196, 2025 WL 3022212, at *6 (W.D. Mich. Oct. 29, 2025); Puerto-Hernandez v. Lynch,
No. 1:25-cv-1097, 2025 WL 3012033, at *9 (W.D. Mich. Oct. 28, 2025); Rodriguez Carmona v.
Noem, No. 1:25-cv-1131, 2025 WL 2992222, at *6 (W.D. Mich. Oct. 24, 2025); Sanchez Alvarez
v. Noem, No. 1:25-cv-1090, 2025 WL 2942648, at *6 (W.D. Mich. Oct. 17, 2025). Moreover, this
Court is far from the first federal District Court to reach this conclusion.
Case 1:25-cv-01298-PLM-MV ECF No. 9, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/19/25 Page 10
of 16

11
B. 	Fifth Amendment Due Process Considerations
Petitioner also argues that his detention violates the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process
Clause. (See Petition, ECF No. 1, PageID.7–8.) Respondents counter Petitioner’s arguments by
stating that Petitioner has received due process because:
Petitioner received notice of the charges against him, has access to counsel, is
scheduled to attend hearings with an immigration judge, may request bond, has the
right to appeal the denial of any request for bond, and has been detained by ICE for
less than four weeks [at the time that Respondents filed their response].
(Resp., ECF No. 4, PageID.36–37.)
“Freedom from imprisonment—from government custody, detention, or other forms of
physical restraint—lies at the heart of the very liberty that [the Due Process Clause] protects.”
Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 690 (2001) (citation omitted). The Fifth Amendment’s Due
Process Clause extends to all persons, regardless of status. See A. A. R. P. v. Trump, 145 S. Ct.
1364, 1367 (2025). Thus, noncitizens, such as Petitioner, are entitled to its protections. See id.; see
also Chavez-Acosta v. Garland, No. 22-3045, 2023 WL 246837, at *3 (6th Cir. Jan. 18. 2023).
Respondents contend that Petitioner is entitled to no further process at this time. (See, e.g.,
Resp. ECF No. 4, PageID.37.) Respondents’ assertion, however, is contradicted by their own
supporting evidence—there is nothing in the record before the Court to suggest that a bond hearing
has been scheduled. Respondents claim further “that statutory provisions denying bond during
administrative removal proceedings do not violate the [D]ue [P]rocess [C]lause.” (Id., PageID.35
(citation omitted).)
Granted, if this Court agreed with Respondents that Petitioner’s detention is governed by
§ 1225(b)(2)(A), the Government’s due process argument might hold true. However, as set forth
above, this Court does not agree with Respondents that Petitioner’s detention is governed by
§ 1225(b)(2)(A). Instead, Petitioner’s detention is governed by § 1226(a). Section 1226(a) clearly
Case 1:25-cv-01298-PLM-MV ECF No. 9, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/19/25 Page 11
of 16

12
sets forth a discretionary framework for detention or release of an alien subject to that provision.
The statute allows the Attorney General to continue to detain the arrested alien, or release the alien
on “bond of at least $1,500 with security approved by, and containing conditions prescribed by,
the Attorney General,” or “conditional parole.” See 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a)(1)–(2). This discretionary
framework “requires a bond hearing to make an individualized custody determination.” See Lopez-
Campos, 2025 WL 2496379, at *9.
The Sixth Circuit has discussed that the balancing test set forth in Mathews v. Eldridge,
424 U.S. 319 (1976), regarding the adequacy of process, applies in the context of immigration
detention. See, e.g., United States v. Silvestre-Gregorio, 983 F.3d 848, 852–56 (6th Cir. 2020) (“If
this court has previously addressed the due-process claim, then we are bound by precedent; if the
claim is an issue of first impression, then we generally apply the three-factor test the Supreme
Court set out in Mathews v. Eldridge. . . .”). Under Mathews, the Court must consider the following
three factors: “(1) the private interest that will be affected by official action; (2) the risk of
erroneous deprivation of that interest; and (3) the government’s interest, including the fiscal and
administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedures entail.” See Lopez-Campos,
2025 WL 2496379, at *9 (citing Mathews, 424 U.S. at 335).
The first Mathews factor clearly weighs in favor of Petitioner. There is no dispute that
Petitioner has a significant private interest in avoiding detention, as one of the “most elemental of
liberty interests” is to be free from detention. Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 529 (2004)
(citation omitted). The Court may also consider Petitioner’s conditions of confinement, i.e.,
“whether a detainee is held in conditions indistinguishable from criminal incarceration.” See
Günaydin v. Trump, 784 F. Supp. 3d 1175, 1187 (D. Minn. 2025) (citing Hernandez-Lara v. Lyons,
10 F.4th 19, 28 (1st Cir. 2021); Velasco Lopez v. Decker, 978 F.3d 842, 851 (2d Cir. 2020)). Here,
Case 1:25-cv-01298-PLM-MV ECF No. 9, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/19/25 Page 12
of 16

13
Petitioner, through counsel, represents that he “is the main provider for his family.” (Petition, ECF
No. 1, PageID.4.) There can be no doubt that he is “experiencing [many of] the deprivations of
incarceration, including loss of contact with friends and family, loss of income earning, . . . lack
of privacy, and, most fundamentally, the lack of freedom of movement.” See Günaydin, 784 F.
Supp. 3d at 1187.
Likewise, the second Mathews factor weighs in Petitioner’s favor. Clearly, there is a high
risk of erroneously depriving Petitioner of his freedom should he not receive an individualized
bond hearing at which the immigration judge can assess whether Petitioner poses a flight risk
and/or a danger to the community.
Finally, under the third Mathews factor, the Court recognizes that the Government “does,
indeed, have a legitimate interest in ensuring noncitizens’ appearance at removal proceedings and
preventing harms to the community.” See Sampiao v. Hyde, No. 1:25-cv-11981-JEK, 2025 WL
2607924, at *12 (D. Mass. Sept. 9, 2025) (citation omitted). However, Respondents have not
shown that they have a significant interest in Petitioner’s continued detention. Notably, continuing
to enforce Petitioner’s detention would likely impose more costs upon the Government, as it would
be required to continue funding and overseeing Petitioner’s detention. See id.
In sum, the Court’s balancing of the Mathews factors weighs in Petitioner’s favor.
Accordingly, 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.3
3 In his § 2241 petition, Petitioner also claims that his detention violates the APA. (See Petition,
ECF No. 1, PageID.6–7.) However, the APA only provides for review of agency action “for which
there is no other adequate remedy in a court . . . .” 5 U.S.C. § 704; see also Trump v. J. G. G., 145
S. Ct. 1003, 1006–07 (2025) (Kavanaugh, J., concurring). Here, the Court has concluded that the
writ of habeas corpus provides an adequate remedy for Petitioner’s claims that his detention
violates both the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause and the INA. Accordingly, “habeas
Case 1:25-cv-01298-PLM-MV ECF No. 9, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/19/25 Page 13
of 16

14
IV. 	Named 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. (Resp., ECF
No. 4, PageID.38.)
“The writ of habeas corpus does not act upon the prisoner who seeks relief, but upon the
person who holds him in what is alleged to be unlawful custody.” Braden v. 30th Jud. Cir. Ct. of
Ky., 410 U.S. 484, 494–95 (1973). Thus,
[r]ead literally, the language of § 2241(a) requires nothing more than that the court
issuing the writ have jurisdiction over the custodian. So long as the custodian can
be reached by service of process, the court can issue a writ “within its jurisdiction”
requiring that the prisoner be brought before the court for a hearing on his claim,
or requiring that he be released outright from custody, even if the prisoner himself
is confined outside the court’s territorial jurisdiction.
Id. at 495.
The Sixth Circuit has concluded “that a detained alien generally must designate his
immediate custodian—the [Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), which was the agency’s
prior name,] District Director for the district where he is being detained—as the respondent to his
habeas corpus petition.” Roman v. Ashcroft, 340 F.3d 314, 322 (6th Cir. 2003). Here, Petitioner
has named the North Lake Processing Center Warden, the Director of the Detroit Field Office of
ICE, the United States Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Attorney General of the United
States as Respondents. (Petition, ECF No. 1, PageID.1, 3.)
In Roman, the Sixth Circuit stated that although it “conclude[d] that the immediate
custodian rule generally applies to alien habeas corpus petitioners, . . . [there is] the possibility of
exceptions to this rule.” Roman, 340 F.3d at 322. The Roman court explained:
corpus, not the APA, is the proper vehicle here,” see J. G. G., 145 S. Ct. at 1007 (Kavanaugh, J.,
concurring), and the Court declines to consider Petitioner’s APA claims.
Case 1:25-cv-01298-PLM-MV ECF No. 9, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/19/25 Page 14
of 16

15
Some courts are also willing to make an exception to the immediate custodian rule
in other extraordinary circumstances. For example, courts have noted the INS’s
ability, as a practical matter, to deny aliens any meaningful opportunity to seek
habeas corpus relief simply by transferring aliens to another district any time they
filed a habeas corpus petition. Chavez–Rivas[ v. Olsen], 194 F. Supp. 2d [368,] 374
[(D.N.J. 2002)]. Aliens remaining in detention for extended periods are often
transferred several times during their detention. See Lee v. Ashcroft, 216 F. Supp.
2d 51, 55 (E.D.N.Y. 2002) (“[T]he location of custody, and the identity of the day-
to-day custodian, frequently change when detainees are transferred among INS
facilities, all of which are under the control of the Attorney General.”); . . . . In light
of these transfers, one court reasoned that an alien may properly name a respondent
other than his immediate custodian because a petition naming a higher level official,
such as the Attorney General, could be adjudicated without interruption in the event
of a transfer. Arias–Agramonte[ v. Comm’r], [No. 00 CIV. 2412 (RWS),] 2000 WL
1617999, at *8 [(S.D.N.Y. Oct. 30, 2000)] (explaining that a petition naming only
one’s immediate custodian would be dismissed when the alien was transferred to
another local district).
Id. at 325–26. Thus, the Sixth Circuit concluded, “an exception might be appropriate if the INS
were to exercise its transfer power in a clear effort to evade an alien’s habeas petitions.” Id. at 326.
In light of the foregoing, to ensure that Respondents maintain authority to enforce this
Court’s conditional grant of habeas relief—i.e., the Court’s directive that Petitioner receive a bond
hearing or, alternatively, be released—in the event that Petitioner is transferred out of the Western
District of Michigan, the Court will not dismiss Secretary Noem as a Respondent to these
proceedings. The Court will, however, dismiss the North Lake Processing Center Warden and the
Attorney General of the United States 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
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. 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
Case 1:25-cv-01298-PLM-MV ECF No. 9, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/19/25 Page 15
of 16

16
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 denied, the
reasons for the denial. Further, the Court will dismiss North Lake Processing Center Warden
Unknown Party and Attorney General of the United States Pamela Bondi as Respondents.
Dated: 	November 19, 2025 	/s/ Paul L. Maloney
Paul L. Maloney
United States District Judge
Case 1:25-cv-01298-PLM-MV ECF No. 9, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/19/25 Page 16
of 16