Mendoza v. Noem et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
______
ERNESTO MENDOZA,
Petitioner,
v.
KRISTI NOEM et al.,
Respondents.
____________________________/
Case No. 1:26-cv-837
Hon. Hala Y. Jarbou
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 combined petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2241 and complaint for emergency injunctive relief. (Pet., ECF No. 1.) For the following
reasons, the Court will 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, Petitioner challenges the lawfulness of his current detention
and asks the Court to, inter alia, assume jurisdiction over this matter and issue a writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 ordering Respondents to release Petitioner. (Pet., ECF No. 1,
PageID.20.) Petitioner also sought a temporary restraining order compelling Respondents to
release Petitioner or to release Petitioner upon payment of the previously ordered bond. (Id.,
Case 1:26-cv-00837-HYJ-MV ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 03/27/26 Page 1
of 6

2
PageID.2.) Petitioner also asked the Court to order Respondents to show cause, within three days,
why the petition should not be granted. (Id.)
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 and other relief requested by Petitioner
should not be granted. (Order, ECF No. 3.) Respondents filed their response on March 23, 2026,
(ECF No. 4), and Petitioner filed his reply on March 26, 2026, (ECF No. 5).
II. Factual Background
Petitioner is a native and citizen of Venezuela. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.4; Notice to
Appear (NTA), ECF No. 4-1, PageID.63.) Petitioner entered the United States on August 8, 2023,
without inspection. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.4; NTA, ECF No. 4-1, PageID.63) On September
12, 2023, Petitioner was arrested by immigration officials. (Warrant for Arrest, ECF No. 4-1,
PageID.66.) The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued Petitioner a Form I-862, NTA,
charging Petitioner with inadmissibility under § 212(a)(6)(A)(i) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (INA) because Petitioner is an immigrant “present in the United States without
being admitted or paroled, or who arrived in the United States at any time or place other than as
designated by the Attorney General.” (NTA, ECF No. 4-1, PageID.63.) DHS then released
Petitioner into the United States on his own recognizance “[i]n accordance with section 236 of the
[INA],” which is codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1226. (Notice of Custody Determination, ECF No. 4-1,
PageID.67.)
On October 12, 2025, Petitioner was arrested by ICE agents. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.6.)
On October 27, 2025, an immigration judge granted Petitioner release on bond of $7,500.00. (Pet.,
ECF No. 1, PageID.6; Oct. 27, 2025, Immigration Judge Order, ECF No. 1-3, PageID.27.)
However, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) subsequently reversed the decision of the
immigration judge, concluding that the immigration judge lacked jurisdiction to grant bond under
Case 1:26-cv-00837-HYJ-MV ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 03/27/26 Page 2
of 6

3
Matter of Yajure Hurtado, 29 I&N Dec. 216 (BIA 2025). (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.6.–7; BIA
Decision, ECF No. 1-4, PageID.32–33.)
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. Jurisdiction
Respondents argue that this Court lacks jurisdiction over Petitioner’s habeas action under
8 U.S.C. § 1226(e). The Court concludes that § § 1226(e) does not preclude the Court’s review of
Petitioner’s § 2241 petition for the reasons set forth in Soto-Medina v. Lynch, No. 1:25-cv-1704, -
-- F. Supp. 3d ----, 2026 WL 161002, at *2 (W.D. Mich. Jan. 21, 2026).
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
Case 1:26-cv-00837-HYJ-MV ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 03/27/26 Page 3
of 6

4
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).1
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, may attend hearings with an 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).
1 The Court is aware of Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, 166 F.4th 494 (5th Cir. 2026), which was
recently issued by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, and Avila v. Bondi,
No. 25-3248, --- F.4th ----, 2026 WL 819258 (8th Cir. Mar. 25, 2026), which was recently issued
by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. At this time, these non-binding cases
do not change the Court’s analysis.
Case 1:26-cv-00837-HYJ-MV ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 03/27/26 Page 4
of 6

5
Because the immigration judge is in the better position to evaluate whether Petitioner poses
a flight risk and a danger to the community, the Court defers to the immigration judge’s sound
discretion and will order Petitioner’s immediate release on the terms set by the immigration judge
on October 27, 2025, including the bond of $7,500.00.
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 all of the other named Respondents. The Court
concludes that the ICE Detroit 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).
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 ICE Detroit Field Office Director and the Secretary
for the Department of Homeland Security as Respondents. The Court will dismiss the United States
Attorney General, the Director of the Executive Office of Immigration Review, and the Chief
Immigration Judge of the Executive Office of Immigration Review as Respondents.
Case 1:26-cv-00837-HYJ-MV ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 03/27/26 Page 5
of 6

6
Conclusion
For the reasons discussed above, the Court will enter a judgment 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 immediately release Petitioner from custody subject to the terms and conditions
previously imposed by the immigration judge, including the $7,500.00 bond. The Court will also
order Respondents to file a status report within two business days of the date of this Court’s opinion
and judgment to certify compliance with this opinion and the corresponding judgment. Further,
the Court will dismiss the United States Attorney General, the Director of the Executive Office of
Immigration Review, and the Chief Immigration Judge of the Executive Office of Immigration
Review as Respondents.
Dated: March 27, 2026 /s/ Hala Y. Jarbou
HALA Y. JARBOU
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 1:26-cv-00837-HYJ-MV ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 03/27/26 Page 6
of 6