Aleite v. Noem et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
______
SIDIYA ALEITE,
Petitioner,
v.
KRISTI NOEM et al.,
Respondents.
____________________________/
Case No. 1:26-cv-400
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 conditionally grant Petitioner’s petition
for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
I. 	Procedural History
In Petitioner’s § 2241 petition, Petitioner initially challenged the constitutionality of his
current detention based on Respondents’ alleged failure to hold a bond hearing. Petitioner asked
the Court to, inter alia, issue a writ of habeas corpus ordering Respondents to release Petitioner or
provide Petitioner with a bond hearing that placed the burden of proof on the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS). (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.17.) In an Order entered on February 10,
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. 5.)
Case 1:26-cv-00400-JMB-SJB ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 03/11/26 Page 1
of 4

2
On February 13, 2026, Respondents filed a motion to dismiss claiming that the petition was moot.
(ECF No. 4.) Respondents explained:
On January 2, 2026, the Detroit Immigration Court conducted a bond hearing in
Petitioner’s 	case, 	where 	bond 	was 	denied 	because 	the 	Immigration 	Judge
determined that the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) established by a
preponderance of the evidence that Petitioner was a flight risk. As a result, the
petition is moot.
(Id., PageID.74.)
Petitioner filed his reply later that same day. (ECF No. 5.) He argued that the bond hearing
provided by DHS was unconstitutional; he challenges the Immigration Judge’s application of the
burden of proof. (Id., PageID.108.)
II. 	Relevant Factual Background
Petitioner is a native and citizen of Mauritania who entered the United States without
inspection during July of 2023. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.1, 4; Notice to Appear (NTA), ECF No.
4-3, PageID.92.) DHS encountered Petitioner during August of 2023, charging Petitioner with
violation of § 212(a)(6)(A)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) because he was an
alien present in the United States without being admitted or paroled or who arrived at any time or
place other than as designated by the Attorney General. (NTA, ECF No. 4-3, PageID.92.) DHS
released Petitioner into the United States on his own recognizance. (Order of Release on
Recognizance, ECF No. 4-5, PageID.98.)
On November 25, 2025, ICE arrested Petitioner and then detained him at the North Lake
Processing Center.
III. 	Discussion
Respondents argue that the petition is moot because Petitioner has already participated in
a bond hearing. Petitioner contends his petition is not moot because the Immigration Judge did not
apply a constitutionally appropriate burden of proof. For the reasons set forth in Soto-Medina v.
Case 1:26-cv-00400-JMB-SJB ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 03/11/26 Page 2
of 4

3
Lynch et al., No. 1:25-cv-1704 (W.D. Mich. Jan. 21, 2026), the Court agrees that Respondents did
not apply an appropriate burden of proof and, therefore, the bond hearing did not moot the petition.
Respondents also claim that the Court should deny Petitioner’s § 2241 petition because of
Petitioner’s failure to exhaust his administrative remedies, as well as on the merits. The Court has
also fully addressed these issues and Respondents’ arguments in Soto-Medina. Therefore, for the
reasons set forth in Soto-Medina, the Court will conditionally grant Petitioner’s petition for a writ
of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
IV. 	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.
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 an individualized bond hearing before an
immigration judge, at which time the government will have the burden to demonstrate
dangerousness or flight risk by clear and convincing evidence, within five business days and 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. 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
Case 1:26-cv-00400-JMB-SJB ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 03/11/26 Page 3
of 4

4
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:
Jane M. Beckering
United States District Judge
March 11, 2026 	/s/ Jane M. Beckering
Case 1:26-cv-00400-JMB-SJB ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 03/11/26 Page 4
of 4