Guido Ballesteros v. Raybon et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
______
JOSE LUIS GUIDO BALLESTEROS,
Petitioner,
v.
MARTY C. RAYBON et al.,
Respondents.
____________________________/
Case No. 1:26-cv-170
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 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, assume jurisdiction over this matter and 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.33.)
In an Order entered on January 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-00170-JMB-MV ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/18/26 Page 1
of 6

2
should not be granted. (Order, ECF No. 3.) Respondents filed their response on January 30, 2026
(ECF No. 4), and Petitioner filed his reply on February 2, 2026 (ECF No. 5).
II. 	Factual Background
Petitioner is a native and citizen of Mexico. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.6; Notice to Appear
(NTA), ECF No. 1, PageID.37.) Petitioner entered the United States on June 1, 2002, at an
unknown location without inspection. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.8; NTA, ECF No. 1, PageID.37.)
Prior to Petitioner’s present detention, he resided in Chicago with his mother and six siblings. (Pet.,
ECF No. 1, PageID.8.) For much of his life, Petitioner maintained Deferred Action for Childhood
Arrivals (DACA) status “continuously until approximately June 6, 2019.” 1 (Id., PageID.2.)
On October 10, 2025, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) agents encountered and
arrested Petitioner while he was on his delivery route. (Id.; see Warrant for Arrest of Alien,
ECF No. 1, PageID.42.) The next day, DHS issued Petitioner a Form I-862, NTA, charging
Petitioner with inadmissibility under §§ 212(a)(6)(A)(i) and 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) of the Immigration
and Nationality Act (INA) because 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].” (NTA, ECF No. 1, PageID.40.)
Petitioner requested a custody redetermination or bond hearing in the Detroit Immigration
Court. (Pet., ECF No. 1, Page ID.11, 49.) On December 2, 2025, the Immigration Judge (IJ) denied
Petitioner’s request pursuant to Matter of Yajure Hurtado, 29 I. & N. Dec. 216 (BIA 2025). (Pet.,
1 Petitioner states that on an unspecified date, he submitted an application to renew his DACA
status. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.9.) Petitioner does not contend that he currently has DACA status.
Case 1:26-cv-00170-JMB-MV ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/18/26 Page 2
of 6

3
ECF No. 1, PageID.49.) The IJ scheduled a master hearing for January 29, 2026. (Notice of
Internet-Based Hearing, ECF No. 4-1, PageID.79.)
On January 29, 2026, the Detroit Immigration Court issued a removal order against
Petitioner. 2 (Reply, ECF No. 5, PageID.81.) See Automated Case Information, https://acis.eoir.
justice.gov/en/ (enter 204-748-679 for the A-Number, select “Mexico” for the Nationality, and
select Submit) (last visited Feb. 13, 2026). On February 2, 2026, Petitioner filed an appeal to the
Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which remains pending. See id. Because Petitioner’s appeal
to the BIA remains pending, Petitioner’s order of removal is not “administratively final” for
purposes of the INA. 3 See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(47)(B), 1231(a)(1)(B)(i), 1231(a)(2)(A).
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
2 The parties do not provide any other information about the January 29, 2026, hearing.
3 Section 1231 of Title 8, titled, “Detention and removal of aliens ordered removed,” provides in
relevant part that, “[d]uring the removal period, the Attorney General shall detain the alien.”
8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(2)(A). However, as relevant to this case, the removal period does not begin to
run until “[t]he date the order of removal becomes administratively final.” Id. § 1231(a)(1)(B)(i).
For the purposes of § 1231(a)(1)(B)(i), a removal order “shall become final upon the earlier of (i) a
determination by the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming such an order; or (ii) the expiration
of the period in which the alien is permitted to seek review of such order by the Board of
Immigration Appeals.” Id. § 1101(a)(47)(B); see Jusufi v. Chertoff, No. 07-15450, 2007 WL
4591760, at *4 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 28, 2007) (discussing that a final removal order becomes
administratively final when the BIA denies an appeal of it); see also Johnson v. Guzman Chavez,
594 U.S. 523, 534–35 (2021) (“[O]nce the BIA has reviewed [and affirmed] the [removal] order
(or the time for seeking the BIA’s review has expired), DHS is free to remove the alien unless a
court issues a stay. That reinforces why Congress included ‘administratively’ before the word
‘final’ in the first provision.”). Because Petitioner’s appeal to the BIA remains pending, § 1231
does not apply, and § 1226(a) governs Petitioner’s detention. See Johnson, 594 U.S. at 533 (“The
parties agree that § 1226 governs the detention of aliens until § 1231’s ‘removal period’ begins.”).
Case 1:26-cv-00170-JMB-MV ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/18/26 Page 3
of 6

4
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. 	Merits Discussion
A. 	Statutory Basis for Petitioner’s Detention
Petitioner contends that Respondents have violated the INA by concluding that Petitioner
is detained pursuant to the mandatory detention provisions set forth in 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2).
Respondents, 	however, 	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). 4
B. 	Fifth Amendment Due Process Considerations
Petitioner also argues that his detention violates the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process
Clause. Respondents counter Petitioner’s arguments by stating that Petitioner has received notice
4 The Court is aware of Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, No. 25-20496, --- F.4th ----, 2026 WL
323330 (5th Cir. Feb. 6, 2026), which was recently issued by the United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit. At this time, this non-binding case does not change the Court’s analysis.
Case 1:26-cv-00170-JMB-MV ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/18/26 Page 4
of 6

5
of the charges against him, has access to counsel, may attend hearings with an immigration judge,
had 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).
V. 	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.
VI. 	Proper Respondents
Respondents argue that Petitioner failed to name a proper 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 in each of the following cases: cf. 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).
Case 1:26-cv-00170-JMB-MV ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/18/26 Page 5
of 6

6
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, the Secretary for
the Department of Homeland Security, and the Acting Director of ICE as Respondents. The Court
will dismiss the United States Attorney General as a Respondent. 5
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 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. Further, the Court will
dismiss the United States Attorney General as a Respondent.
Dated:
Jane M. Beckering
United States District Judge
5 The Court previously dismissed the Warden of the North Lake Processing Center as a
Respondent. (Order, ECF No. 3.)
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.
February 18, 2026 	/s/ Jane M. Beckering
Case 1:26-cv-00170-JMB-MV ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/18/26 Page 6
of 6