Magdaleno Rojas et al v. Lynch et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
______
ALONSO MAGDALENO ROJAS et al.,
Petitioners,
v.
ROBERT LYNCH et al.,
Respondents.
____________________________/
Case No. 1:25-cv-1818
Honorable Paul L. Maloney
OPINION
Petitioners, 	United 	States 	Immigration 	and 	Customs 	Enforcement 	(ICE) 	detainees
currently detained at the North Lake Processing Center located in Baldwin, Lake County,
Michigan, initiated this action on December 17, 2025, 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 conditionally grant Petitioners’ petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2241.
Discussion
I. 	Procedural History
In Petitioners’ § 2241 petition, Petitioners challenge the lawfulness of their current
detention and asks the Court to, inter alia, declare that Respondents’ actions to detain Petitioners
violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and the Immigration and Nationality Act
(INA), and issue a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 either ordering Respondents
to release Petitioners or ordering Respondents to conduct a bond hearing to satisfy the
requirements of due process. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.9–10.)
Case 1:25-cv-01818-PLM-RSK ECF No. 8, PageID.<pageID> Filed 01/02/26 Page 1
of 6

2
In an order entered on December 19, 2025, the Court directed Respondents to show cause,
within three business days, why the writ of habeas corpus and other relief requested by Petitioners
should not be granted. (Order, ECF No. 5.) Respondents filed their response on December 22,
2025, (ECF No. 6.), and Petitioners filed their reply on December 29, 2025, (ECF No. 7).
II. 	Factual Background
Petitioners are citizens of Mexico. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.2; A. Rojas Notice to Appear
(NTA), ECF No. 1-1, PageID.15; C. Rojas NTA, ECF No. 1-6, PageID.22.) Petitioners each
entered the United States in or around July 2005 (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.3) at an unknown
location without being “admitted or paroled.” (A. Rojas NTA, ECF No. 1-1, PageID.15; C. Rojas
NTA, ECF No. 1-6, PageID.22). Prior to Petitioners’ present detention, they resided in Detroit,
Michigan. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.3–4.)
On December 4, 2025, ICE officers encountered and arrested Petitioners in Detroit,
Michigan. (Id.) The Department of Homeland Security issued each Petitioner a Form I-862, NTA,
charging Petitioners with inadmissibility under §§ 212(a)(6)(A)(i) and 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) of the
INA because each 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,” and “who, at the time of application for admission, is not in possession of a
valid unexpired [immigration or travel document].” (A. Rojas NTA, ECF No. 1-1, PageID.15; C.
Rojas NTA, ECF No. 1-6, PageID.22.)
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
Case 1:25-cv-01818-PLM-RSK ECF No. 8, PageID.<pageID> Filed 01/02/26 Page 2
of 6

3
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 Petitioners’ request for habeas corpus relief
because Petitioners have not exhausted their administrative remedies. Specifically, Respondents
argue that Petitioners should each pursue a bond hearing and, if necessary, appeal any unfavorable
decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA).
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
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 Petitioners’ § 2241 petition.
V. 	Merits Discussion
A. 	Statutory Basis for Petitioners’ Detention
Petitioners contend that Respondents have violated the INA by concluding that Petitioners
are detained pursuant to the mandatory detention provisions set forth in 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2).
Respondents, 	however, 	contend 	that Petitioners 	meet 	every 	element 	for 	detention 	under
§ 1225(b)(2), and that the statute’s structure and history support Respondents’ interpretation.
Case 1:25-cv-01818-PLM-RSK ECF No. 8, PageID.<pageID> Filed 01/02/26 Page 3
of 6

4
The Court concludes that § 1226(a), not § 1225(b)(2)(A), governs noncitizens, such as
Petitioners, 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).
B. 	Fifth Amendment Due Process Considerations
Petitioners also argue that their detention violates the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process
Clause. Respondents counter Petitioners’ arguments by stating that Petitioners have received
notice of the charges against them, have access to counsel, are scheduled to attend hearings with
an immigration judge, have the right to appeal the denial of any request for bond, and have been
detained by ICE for less than three weeks.
The Court concludes that Petitioners’ current detention under the mandatory detention
framework set forth in § 1225(b)(2)(A) violates Petitioners’ 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).
Case 1:25-cv-01818-PLM-RSK ECF No. 8, PageID.<pageID> Filed 01/02/26 Page 4
of 6

5
VI. 	Other Claims and Other Forms of Relief
Because the Court will conditionally grant Petitioners’ § 2241 petition as set forth herein,
the Court does not address other claims and other requested relief in Petitioners’ § 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 Petitioners are 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.
Conclusion
For the reasons discussed above, the Court will enter a judgment conditionally granting
Petitioners’ petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (ECF No. 1.) The
Court will order Respondents to provide each 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 or, in the
Case 1:25-cv-01818-PLM-RSK ECF No. 8, PageID.<pageID> Filed 01/02/26 Page 5
of 6

6
alternative, immediately release each Petitioner from custody.1 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 hearings 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: 	January 2, 2026 	/s/ Paul L. Maloney
Paul L. Maloney
United States District Judge
1 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.
Case 1:25-cv-01818-PLM-RSK ECF No. 8, PageID.<pageID> Filed 01/02/26 Page 6
of 6