Calderon Jerez v. Lyons et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
______
PEDRO RAFAEL CALDERON JEREZ,
Petitioner,
v.
TODD M. LYONS et al.,
Respondents.
____________________________/
Case No. 1:26-cv-918
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, initiated
this action by filing a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
(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. 	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 either
ordering Respondents to release Petitioner or ordering Respondents to conduct a bond hearing to
satisfy the requirements of due process. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.3.)1
1 In addition to filing the § 2241 petition, Petitioner also filed a motion for immediate relief and an
emergency motion to restrict Respondents from transferring Petitioner outside of the Western
District of Michigan during the pendency of this case. (ECF Nos. 2, 3.) As set forth in this opinion,
the Court will conditionally grant Petitioner’s § 2241 petition and order Respondents to release
Petitioner from custody or to provide Petitioner with a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). In
Case 1:26-cv-00918-PLM-RSK ECF No. 9, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/10/26 Page 1
of 6

2
In an order entered on March 25, 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. 6.) Respondents filed their response on March 30, 2026.
(ECF No. 7.)
II. 	Factual Background
Petitioner is a native and citizen of Venezuela. (Notice to Appear (NTA), ECF No. 7-1,
PageID.65.) Petitioner entered the United States on or about January 19, 2024, at a port of entry in
Brownsville, Texas. (Id.) At that time, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued
Petitioner a Form I-862, NTA, charging Petitioner with inadmissibility under § 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I)
of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) because Petitioner is an immigrant “who, at the time
of application for admission, is not in possession of a valid unexpired [immigration or travel
document].” (Id., PageID.68.) Petitioner was then paroled into the United States under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1182(d)(5)(A), until January 17, 2026. (Form I-94, ECF No. 2-3, PageID.17 (indicating that
Petitioner’s “Class of Admission” is “DT”2 ).) Petitioner later filed an application for asylum and
withholding of removal, which remains pending. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.2.) Petitioner has no
criminal history. (2026 Form I-213, ECF No. 7-3, PageID.75.)
light of this, the entry of the Court’s opinion and corresponding judgment moots Petitioner’s
pending motion.
2 See United States Citizenship and Immigration Services Guidance Website, https://www.uscis.
gov/save/current-user-agencies/guidance/faqs-on-the-effect-of-changes-to-parole-and-temporary-
protected-status-tps-for-save-agencies (under “Non-Categorical Parole” heading, select “What
does ‘Non-Categorical Parole’ mean?”) (“Aliens who are outside of the United States may request
to be paroled into the United States based on urgent humanitarian reasons or a significant public
benefit. These aliens are not paroled into the United States under a categorical parole program or
process. Often, the Class of Admission (COA) for these aliens is ‘DT’ though other parole related
COAs may have been used.”).
Case 1:26-cv-00918-PLM-RSK ECF No. 9, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/10/26 Page 2
of 6

3
On February 13, 2026, ICE agents encountered and arrested Petitioner.3 (Id., PageID.74.)
Petitioner was scheduled for a master calendar hearing on April 3, 2026, in the Detroit Immigration
Court.4 (Notice of Internet-Based Hearing, ECF No. 7-5, PageID.81.)
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
3 Respondents indicate that ICE encountered Petitioner after seeing Petitioner enter a “known
vehicle” while conducting surveillance. (Form I-213, ECF No. 7-3, PageID.74.) Respondents do
not argue that Petitioner is subject to mandatory detention pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c), and
there is nothing in the record presently before the Court to suggest that Petitioner was a law
enforcement target for any reason other than his status as a noncitizen. (See id.)
4 The parties do not provide any other information about the April 3, 2026, hearing.
Case 1:26-cv-00918-PLM-RSK ECF No. 9, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/10/26 Page 3
of 6

4
exhaustion analysis in each of the following cases: Antele Cobix v. Raycraft, No. 1:25-cv-1669,
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
Respondents 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).5
5 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-00918-PLM-RSK ECF No. 9, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/10/26 Page 4
of 6

5
B. 	Fifth Amendment Due Process Considerations
Petitioner 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).
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 other named Respondent. 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,
Case 1:26-cv-00918-PLM-RSK ECF No. 9, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/10/26 Page 5
of 6

6
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 Acting
Director of ICE 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 with notice to the Parties
as soon as practicable, no later than 24 hours prior to the scheduled hearing, or, in the alternative,
immediately release Petitioner from custody.6 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: 	April 10, 2026 	/s/ Paul L. Maloney
Paul L. Maloney
United States District Judge
6 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 or only release.
Case 1:26-cv-00918-PLM-RSK ECF No. 9, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/10/26 Page 6
of 6