Yu v. Noem et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
______
MINGYUAN YU,
Petitioner,
v.
KRISTI NOEM et al.,
Respondents.
____________________________/
Case No. 1:26-cv-889
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.) 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 a bond hearing where the government bears the burden of proof by clear
and convincing evidence that Petitioner is a flight risk or danger to the community. (Pet., ECF
No. 1, PageID.15–16.)
In an order entered on March 27, 2026, the Court directed Respondents to show cause,
within three business days, why the writ of habeas corpus and other relief requested by Petitioner
Case 1:26-cv-00889-JMB-RSK ECF No. 8, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/13/26 Page 1
of 3

2
should not be granted. (Order, ECF No. 5.) Respondents filed their response and a recording of the
March 10, 2026, bond hearing on April 1, 2026. (Resp., ECF No. 6; Recording of Mar. 10, 2026,
Bond Hearing, filed on Apr. 1, 2026.) Petitioner filed his reply on April 6, 2026. (ECF No. 7.)
II. 	Relevant Factual Background
Petitioner is a citizen of China who entered the United States in 2016 pursuant to an F-1
visa and remained in the United States after that visa expired. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.2, 8.) On
or about May 29, 2025, Petitioner was arrested by ICE. (Id., PageID.8.)
On January 27, 2026, Petitioner filed a § 2241 petition challenging his initial detention
without a bond hearing in Yu v. Noem (Yu I), No. 1:26-cv-292 (W.D. Mich.). In Yu I, the Court
conditionally granted Petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241,
ordering Respondents to provide Petitioner with a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within
five business days of the date of the Court’s Opinion and Judgment or, in the alternative,
immediately release Petitioner from custody. Op. & Jud., Yu I, (W.D. Mich. Mar. 4, 2026), (ECF
Nos. 13, 14).
On March 10, 2026, Petitioner received a bond hearing pursuant to § 1226(a). (Pet., ECF
No. 1, PageID.2.) The Immigration Judge found that Petitioner had been in the United States for
9 years, that Petitioner had never missed any hearings, and that there was no evidence that
Petitioner had a criminal record or had committed any immigration violations other than being in
violation of his visa. (Order of the Immigration Judge, ECF No. 1-1, PageID.31.) The Immigration
Judge also found that Petitioner was married to a United States citizen and that Petitioner owned
a restaurant in the United States. (Id.) Furthermore, the Immigration Judge determined that the
evidence demonstrated that Petitioner had community ties. (Id.) But the Immigration Judge noted
that the record did not “contain a clear time-line” of where Petitioner lived within the United States,
and that Petitioner’s spouse did not live at the same address as Petitioner. (Id., PageID.31–32.) The
Case 1:26-cv-00889-JMB-RSK ECF No. 8, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/13/26 Page 2
of 3

3
Immigration Judge further found that Petitioner’s application for asylum and withholding of
removal had been denied and Petitioner’s request for voluntary departure had been approved,
although 	Petitioner’s 	appeal 	of 	those 	decisions 	remained 	pending. 	(Id., 	PageID.32.) 	The
Immigration Judge denied Petitioner’s request for bond, stating: “Based on this record, the Court
finds [Petitioner] is a flight risk[.]” (Id.)
III. 	Discussion
In Petitioner’s § 2241 petition, Petitioner argues that the Immigration Judge did not apply
the constitutionally required burden of proof at Petitioner’s § 1226(a) bond hearing on March 10,
2026. Specifically, Petitioner argues that the Immigration Judge failed to require the government
to demonstrate dangerousness or flight risk by clear and convincing evidence. See Soto-Medina v.
Lynch, No. 1:25-cv-1704, --- F. Supp. 3d ----, 2026 WL 161002, at *2 (W.D. Mich. Jan. 21, 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:
Jane M. Beckering
United States District Judge
April 13, 2026 	/s/ Jane M. Beckering
Case 1:26-cv-00889-JMB-RSK ECF No. 8, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/13/26 Page 3
of 3