Kandashkina v. Unknown Party #1 et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
______
ANASTASIIA KANDASHKINA
ON BEHALF OF
DENIS MOISEEV,
Petitioner,
v.
UNKNOWN PARTY #1 et al.,
Respondents.
____________________________/
Case No. 1:26-cv-1043
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 immediately release
Petitioner. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.7.)
In an order entered on April 2, 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
Case 1:26-cv-01043-JMB-MV ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/15/26 Page 1
of 4

2
not be granted. (Order, ECF No. 3.) Respondents filed their response on April 7, 2026. (Resp.,
ECF No. 5.)
II. 	Relevant Factual Background
Petitioner is a citizen of Russia who was admitted to the United States as a B2
nonimmigrant visa holder with authorization to remain in the United States for a temporary period;
however, Petitioner remained in the United States beyond the time authorized. (Notice to Appear
(NTA), ECF No. 5-1, PageID.48.) On September 11, 2025, Petitioner was arrested by United
States Border Patrol following a traffic stop by Michigan State Police. (2025 Form I-213, ECF No.
5-2, PageID.54.)
On October 20, 2025, Petitioner received a custody redetermination hearing pursuant to
§ 1226(a). (Immigration Judge Order, ECF No. 1-1, PageID.11.) At the conclusion of the October
25, 2025, hearing, in a written order, the Immigration Judge denied Petitioner’s request for bond,
stating: “Danger. [R]ecent DUI charge and probation.” (Id.) Petitioner claims that, following the
October 25, 2025, hearing, the criminal charge that was the basis for the denial of bond was
dismissed. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.2.) There is no indication that Petitioner has requested a
second redetermination hearing. (See Pet., ECF No. 1, generally.)
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).
Case 1:26-cv-01043-JMB-MV ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/15/26 Page 2
of 4

3
IV. 	Discussion
In Petitioner’s § 2241 petition, Petitioner seeks to challenge his continued detention
following the dismissal of his criminal charges. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.2.) However, Petitioner
does not raise any legal or constitutional challenge to the October 20, 2025, decision of the
Immigration Judge, denying Petitioner bond based upon the facts then before the Detroit
Immigration Court.
Noncitizens “who are held in custody under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), while their petitions for
review of their removal orders are pending, are entitled to a bond hearing before an immigration
judge.” Leonardo v. Crawford, 646 F.3d 1157, 1160 (9th Cir. 2011) (citation omitted); see, e.g.,
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). If the noncitizen is “dissatisfied with the
[immigration judge’s] bond determination,” the noncitizen ordinarily must “file an administrative
appeal so that ‘the necessity of detention can be reviewed by . . . the BIA.’” Leonardo, 646 F.3d
at 1160 (citation omitted). A noncitizen who remains detained under Section 1226(a) may also
later obtain another custody determination whenever “circumstances have changed materially
since the prior bond redetermination.” 8 C.F.R. 1003.19(e).
There are exceptions to this general rule. For example, the United States Court of Appeals
for the Sixth Circuit has noted that due process challenges that 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 exhaustion” because “the BIA
Case 1:26-cv-01043-JMB-MV ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/15/26 Page 3
of 4

4
lacks authority to review constitutional challenges,” but noting that an “alien must raise correctable
procedural errors to the BIA”). “When a petitioner does not exhaust administrative remedies, a
district court ordinarily should either dismiss the petition without prejudice or stay the proceedings
until the petitioner has exhausted remedies, unless exhaustion is excused.” Leonardo, 646 F.3d at
1160.
In this case, although Petitioner challenges his detention generally, Petitioner does not
argue that the procedures of the bond hearing itself violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth
Amendment and he does not contend that he ever sought a second custody redetermination hearing
based upon the dismissal of the criminal charges under 8 C.F.R. 1003.19(e). Under these
circumstances, the issues raised in the present § 2241 petition are issues that must first be raised
in the Immigration Court. Petitioner has not exhausted his administrative remedies, and Petitioner
has not demonstrated grounds for excusing the exhaustion requirement in this case.
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: 	April 15, 2026 	/s/ Jane M. Beckering
Jane M. Beckering
United States District Judge
Case 1:26-cv-01043-JMB-MV ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/15/26 Page 4
of 4