Valero v. Unknown Party

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
______
FELIX RODRIGUEZ VALERO,
Petitioner,
v.
UNKNOWN PARTY,
Respondent.
____________________________/
Case No. 1:26-cv-2705
Honorable Jane M. Beckering
OPINION
Petitioner, a United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detainee, initiated
this action by filing a 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 dismiss the petition for a writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 without prejudice.
Discussion
I. 	Procedural History
The habeas petition challenges the lawfulness of Petitioner’s current detention and asks the
Court to, inter alia, issue a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 ordering
Respondents to release Petitioner. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.7.) Respondent filed his response on
September 30, 2026, (ECF No. 3), and Petitioner filed a reply on October 8, 2026, (ECF No. 6).
II. 	Factual Background
Petitioner is a native and citizen of Cuba. (ECF No. 6-1, PageID.31.) Petitioner entered the
United States on May 8, 2019. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.6.)
Case 1:26-cv-02705-JMB-RSK ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/15/26 Page 1
of 4

2
On June 22, 2025, Petitioner was arrested for Unlawful Use of Criminal Instrument,
Tamper/Fabricate Physical Evidence with Intent to Impair, Burglary of Coin Operated/Collection
Machine, and Theft of Property Greater than $100 Less than $750. (Incident Report, ECF No. 6-
1, PageID.23–26.) Petitioner was transferred to ICE custody on June 23, 2025. (Pet., ECF No. 1,
PageID.4.)
Petitioner is currently detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c). (Reply, ECF No. 6, PageID.19.)
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 upon the federal courts 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. 	Discussion
Petitioner claims that he should not be subject to mandatory detention under § 1226(c)
because he was not convicted of one of the predicate offenses and is, therefore, entitled to a bond
hearing under § 1226(a). (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.6; Reply, ECF No. 6, PageID.19–20.)
Respondent counters Petitioner’s arguments by arguing, inter alia, that Petitioner has failed to
exhaust his administrative remedies in immigration court. (Resp., ECF No. 3, PageID.13.)
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); cf. Lopez-
Campos v. Raycraft, 175 F.4th 713 (6th Cir. 2026). In contrast, § 1226(c)(1)(E) provides, in
Case 1:26-cv-02705-JMB-RSK ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/15/26 Page 2
of 4

3
relevant part, that “[t]he Attorney General shall take into custody any alien who . . . is charged
with, is arrested for, is convicted of, admits having committed, or admits committing acts which
constitute the essential elements of any burglary, theft, larceny, shoplifting, or assault of a law
enforcement officer offense . . .” 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c)(1)(E). Unlike § 1226(a), which allows for
release on bond, § 1226(c) stipulates that release from detention is available “only if the
[noncitizen] is released for witness-protection purposes.” Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281,
306 (2018) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
To the extent that a noncitizen believes that his detention does not fall within the scope of
§ 1226(c), he may request a “Joseph hearing” in Immigration Court. See Matter of Joseph, 22 I. &
N. Dec. 799 (BIA 1999); see also 8 C.F.R. § 1003.19(a). At such a hearing, the noncitizen would
have the opportunity to “avoid mandatory detention by demonstrating that he is not an alien, was
not convicted of the predicate crime, or that the [Government] is otherwise substantially unlikely
to establish that he is in fact subject to mandatory detention.” Jennings, 583 U.S. at 289 n.1
(quoting Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510, 514 n.3 (2003)).
If a noncitizen is dissatisfied with a decision of the immigration judge, the noncitizen
ordinarily must “file an administrative appeal so that ‘the necessity of detention can be reviewed
by . . . the [Board of Immigration Appeals] [(]BIA[)].’” Leonardo, 646 F.3d at 1160 (citation
omitted). “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 1160.1
1 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-02705-JMB-RSK ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/15/26 Page 3
of 4

4
Here, there is no indication that Petitioner has requested a bond hearing or a Joseph hearing
in Immigration Court, let alone that Petitioner has appealed any adverse decision to the BIA.
Therefore, Petitioner has not exhausted his administrative remedies. Petitioner has also not
demonstrated grounds for excusing the exhaustion requirement in this case. Accordingly, the Court
will dismiss the petition for writ of habeas corpus without prejudice.
Conclusion
For the reasons discussed above, the Court will dismiss the petition for a writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 without prejudice.
Dated:
Jane M. Beckering
United States District Judge
lacks authority to review constitutional challenges,” but noting that an “alien must raise correctable
procedural errors to the BIA”). The parties have not provided the Court with any information that
would suggest that an exception applies here.
October 15, 2026 /s/ Jane M. Beckering
Case 1:26-cv-02705-JMB-RSK ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/15/26 Page 4
of 4