Suarez Guerrero v. Noem et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
______
HELMUTH SUAREZ GUERRERO,
Petitioner,
v.
KRISTI NOEM et al.,
Respondents.
____________________________/
Case No. 1:26-cv-758
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, he 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 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 ordering Respondents to
release Petitioner or provide Petitioner with a bond hearing where the government bears the burden
of proof by clear and convincing evidence that Petitioner is a flight risk or danger to the
community. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.9.) In an order entered on March 13, 2026, the Court directed
Respondents to show cause, within three business days, why the writ of habeas corpus should not
Case 1:26-cv-00758-JMB-MV ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 03/30/26 Page 1
of 3

2
be granted. (Order, ECF No. 4.) Respondents filed their response on March 18, 2026, (ECF No. 5),
and Petitioner filed his reply on March 23, 2026, (ECF No. 6).
II. 	Factual Background
Petitioner is a citizen of Mexico who entered the United States in 2003. (Pet., ECF No. 1,
PageID.3.) On October 19, 2025, Petitioner was arrested by ICE. (Id., PageID.4.)
On November 25, 2025, Petitioner filed a § 2241 petition challenging his initial detention
without a bond hearing in Suarez Guerrero v. Noem (Suarez Guerrero I), No. 1:25-cv-1572 (W.D.
Mich.). In Suarez Guerrero I, the Court conditionally granted Petitioner’s petition for a writ of
habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, ordering Respondents to provide Petitioner with a
bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within five business days of the date of the Court’s Opinion
and Judgment or, in the alternative, immediately release Petitioner from custody. Op. & Jud.,
Suarez Guerrero I, (W.D. Mich. Dec. 9, 2025), (ECF Nos. 6, 7).
On December 16, 2025, Petitioner received a bond hearing pursuant to § 1226(a). (Pet.,
ECF No. 1, PageID.4.) At that hearing, “Petitioner argued that he was not a danger to the
community or a flight risk because he was gainfully employed, has many ties to his community,
and did not have a criminal record sufficient to show he was a danger to the community.” (Id.,
PageID.5.) “The government only presented evidence of a pending traffic charge for a suspended
license.” (Id.) At the conclusion of the December 16, 2025, hearing, the immigration judge denied
Petitioner’s request for bond because Petitioner did not establish that he was not a danger to the
community. (Order Immigration Judge, ECF No. 5-4, PageID.65.)
III. 	Analysis
Respondents argue that the Court should deny Petitioner’s § 2241 petition due to a lack of
jurisdiction and Petitioner’s failure to exhaust Petitioner’s administrative remedies, as well as on
the merits. The Court has fully addressed these issues and Respondents’ arguments in Soto-Medina
Case 1:26-cv-00758-JMB-MV ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 03/30/26 Page 2
of 3

3
v. Lynch, No. 1:25-cv-1704, --- F. Supp. 3d ----, 2026 WL 161002, at *2 (W.D. Mich. Jan. 21,
2026). 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
The Court will order Respondents to provide Petitioner with an individualized bond
hearing before a neutral 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 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: 	March 30, 2026 	/s/ Jane M. Beckering
Jane M. Beckering
United States District Judge
Case 1:26-cv-00758-JMB-MV ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 03/30/26 Page 3
of 3