Marenna v. Unknown Party

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
______
ELIESER DAVID BELISARIO-
RODRIGUEZ, proceeding by his next friend
DANIEL ALBERO MARENNA,
Petitioner,
v.
KRISTI NOEM et al.,
Respondents.
____________________________/
Case No. 1:25-cv-1643
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,
proceeding by his next friend Mr. Marenna, filed this petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging the lawfulness of Petitioner’s detention.1 (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. 	Relevant Procedural History
In Petitioner’s § 2241 petition, Petitioner challenges the lawfulness of his current detention
and asks the Court to, inter alia, issue a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241
1 In an order entered on January 8, 2026, the Court permitted Mr. Marenna to proceed as next
friend of Petitioner in this action. (ECF No. 8.)
Case 1:25-cv-01643-PLM-RSK ECF No. 18, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/06/26 Page 1
of 6

2
ordering Respondents to release Petitioner or to conduct a bond hearing for Petitioner’s removal
proceedings. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.2.)
In an order entered on January 8, 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. 9.) Following an extension of time, Respondents filed their
response on January 16, 2026, (ECF No. 15), and Petitioner filed his reply on January 20, 2026,
(ECF No. 17).2
II. 	Relevant Factual Background
Petitioner is a native and citizen of Venezuela. (Wachowski Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 15-1,
PageID.76.) On May 31, 2023, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) agents encountered
Petitioner near Del Rio, Texas. (Id. ¶ 5.) At that time, Petitioner was processed for expedited
removal. (Id.) Petitioner “then claimed a credible fear of returning to his country,” and on August
1, 2023, DHS issued Petitioner a Form I-862, Notice to Appear (NTA), “after an asylum officer
found he had demonstrated a credible fear of persecution.” (Id. ¶¶ 5, 7, PageID.77.)
Petitioner was granted Temporary Protected Status (TPS), and on October 29, 2024, the
Detroit Immigration Court “granted a motion to terminate proceedings” due to Petitioner’s TPS.
(Id. ¶ 9, PageID.77–78.) Petitioner’s TPS expired on April 2, 2025, and on April 1, 2025, Petitioner
“applied for TPS re-registration.” (Id. ¶ 10, PageID.78.) “On November 20, 2025, [Petitioner’s]
TPS application was terminated after DHS terminated TPS designation for Venezuela on
November 7, 2025.” (Id.)
2 Petitioner also filed several motions in this action, two of which remain pending. One of the
pending motions seeks a ruling from the Court in this case, and the other seeks the release of
Petitioner during the pendency of this action. (ECF Nos. 10, 16.) As set forth herein, the Court will
conditionally grant Petitioner’s § 2241 petition, and the resolution of the case moots the pending
motions.
Case 1:25-cv-01643-PLM-RSK ECF No. 18, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/06/26 Page 2
of 6

3
ICE took Petitioner into custody on November 11, 2025. (Id. ¶ 11.) On November 16, 2025,
“[a]n NTA was drafted and filed with the Detroit, Michigan Immigration Court,” charging with
inadmissibility under §§ 212(a)(6)(A)(i) and 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) of the Immigration and Nationality
Act (INA). (Id. ¶ 12.) Petitioner was scheduled for a master calendar hearing on January 26, 2026,
in the Detroit Immigration Court.3 (Id. ¶ 13, PageID.79.)
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-
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. 	Exhaustion
Respondents argue that the Court should deny Petitioner’s request for habeas corpus relief
because Petitioner has not exhausted his administrative remedies. Specifically, Respondents argue
that Petitioner should pursue a bond hearing and, if necessary, appeal any unfavorable decision to
the Board of Immigration Appeals.
The Court declines to enforce the doctrine of prudential exhaustion against Petitioner, and
even if the Court were to conclude that exhaustion is warranted, the Court concludes in the
alternative that waiver of exhaustion is appropriate, for the reasons set forth in the Court’s
exhaustion analysis in each of the following cases: Antele Cobix v. Raycraft, No. 1:25-cv-1669,
3 The parties do not provide any other information about the January 26, 2026, hearing.
Case 1:25-cv-01643-PLM-RSK ECF No. 18, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/06/26 Page 3
of 6

4
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).
Accordingly, the Court will proceed to address the merits of Petitioner’s § 2241 petition.
V. 	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).
Respondents, 	however, 	contend 	that 	Petitioner 	meets 	every 	element 	for 	detention 	under
§ 1225(b)(2), and that the statute’s structure and history support Respondents’ interpretation.
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 for the reasons set forth in the Court’s statutory analysis in each of the
following cases: Antele Cobix v. Raycraft, No. 1:25-cv-1669, 2025 WL 3562651, at *3–6 (W.D.
Mich. Dec. 12, 2025); Candela Bastidas v. Noem, No. 1:25-cv-1528, 2025 WL 3562638, at *4–6
(W.D. Mich. Dec. 12, 2025); Acuna Sanchez v. Noem, No. 1:25-cv-1442, 2025 WL 3562577,
at *4–7 (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 *3–6 (W.D. Mich. Dec. 12, 2025).
B. 	Fifth Amendment Due Process Considerations
Petitioner also argues that his detention violates the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process
Clause. Respondents counter Petitioner’s arguments by stating that Petitioner has received notice
of the charges against him, has access to counsel, is scheduled to attend hearings with an
Case 1:25-cv-01643-PLM-RSK ECF No. 18, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/06/26 Page 4
of 6

5
immigration judge, has the right to appeal the denial of any request for bond, and has been detained
by ICE for a relatively short period of time.
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
for the reasons set forth in the Court’s constitutional analysis in each of the following cases:
Antele Cobix v. Raycraft, No. 1:25-cv-1669, 2025 WL 3562651, at *6–8 (W.D. Mich. Dec. 12,
2025); Candela Bastidas v. Noem, No. 1:25-cv-1528, 2025 WL 3562638, at *7–8 (W.D. Mich.
Dec. 12, 2025); Acuna Sanchez v. Noem, No. 1:25-cv-1442, 2025 WL 3562577, at *7–9 (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 *6–8 (W.D. Mich. Dec. 12, 2025).
VI. 	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.
VII. 	Proper Respondents
Respondents argue that the Detroit ICE Field Office Director is the only proper Respondent
in this action, and they seek the dismissal of the United States Secretary of Homeland Security as
a Respondent. The Court concludes that the Detroit ICE Field Office Director is not the only proper
Respondent for the reasons set forth in the Court’s analysis of the same argument in each of the
following cases: Antele Cobix v. Raycraft, No. 1:25-cv-1669, 2025 WL 3562651, at *8–9 (W.D.
Mich. Dec. 12, 2025); Candela Bastidas v. Noem, No. 1:25-cv-1528, 2025 WL 3562638, at *8–9
(W.D. Mich. Dec. 12, 2025); Acuna Sanchez v. Noem, No. 1:25-cv-1442, 2025 WL 3562577,
at *9–10 (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 *9–10 (W.D. Mich. Dec. 12, 2025).
Case 1:25-cv-01643-PLM-RSK ECF No. 18, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/06/26 Page 5
of 6

6
To ensure that this Court’s orders regarding a hearing or release will bind at least one
Respondent with authority to act in the event that Petitioner is transferred out of the Western
District of Michigan, the Court will retain the Detroit ICE Field Office Director and the United
States Secretary of Homeland Security 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.4 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: 	February 6, 2026 	/s/ Paul L. Maloney
Paul L. Maloney
United States District Judge
4 This Court has adopted a standard practice of requiring such a hearing within five business days,
even if the Petitioner requests a deadline that is shorter or longer.
Case 1:25-cv-01643-PLM-RSK ECF No. 18, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/06/26 Page 6
of 6