Tan v. Ball

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
______
HAO TAN,
Petitioner,
v.
KIMBERLY BALL et al.,
Respondents.
____________________________/
Case No. 1:26-cv-778
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 pro se 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. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.7.) In an order entered on March 27, 2026, the Court
directed Respondents to show cause, within three business days, why the writ of habeas corpus
should not be granted. (Order, ECF No. 5.) Respondents filed their response on April 1, 2026,
(Resp., ECF No. 7), and Petitioner filed his reply on April 20, 2026, (ECF No. 10).
Case 1:26-cv-00778-JMB-MV ECF No. 11, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/23/26 Page 1
of 4

2
II. 	Factual Background
Petitioner is a citizen of China who entered the United States in 2014 pursuant to a
nonimmigrant B-2 visitor visa with authorization to remain in the United States until April 5, 2015.
(Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.6.; Notice to Appear (NTA), ECF No. 7-1, PageID.63.) Petitioner
overstayed his visa, and on January 4, 2018, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued
an NTA charging Petitioner as removable under § 237(a)(1)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality
Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(B), because he remained in the United States longer than
permitted. (NTA, ECF No. 7-1, PageID.63.) Thereafter, Petitioner filed an application for asylum.
(Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.6; 2025 Form I-213, ECF No. 7-3, PageID.71.)
On February 24, 2025, an Immigration Judge (IJ) denied Petitioner’s application for
asylum and ordered him removed to China. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.6; Order of the IJ, ECF No.
7-4, PageID.74.) On March 17, 2025, Petitioner timely appealed to the Board of Immigration
Appeals (BIA), and his appeal remains pending. (2025 Form I-213, ECF No. 7-3, PageID.71.)
On October 27, 2025, Petitioner was arrested and detained by ICE at a weigh station near
Chicago, Illinois. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.2; 2025 Form I-213, ECF No. 7-3, PageID.71.) On
December 29, 2025, Petitioner received a bond hearing pursuant to § 1226(a). (Pet., ECF No. 1,
PageID.2; Order of the IJ, ECF No. 7-5, PageID.76.) At the conclusion of the hearing, the IJ denied
Petitioner’s request for bond because Petitioner “did not establish he is not a flight risk.” (Order
of the IJ, ECF No. 7-5, PageID.76.) Petitioner filed three subsequent requests for a custody
redetermination or bond hearing, which were all denied due to no material change in Petitioner’s
circumstances. (See Jan. 29, 2026 Order of the IJ, ECF No. 7-5, PageID.78; Feb. 11, 2026 Order
of the IJ, ECF No. 7-5, PageID.80; Mar. 17, 2026 Order of the IJ, ECF No. 7-5, PageID.82.)
Case 1:26-cv-00778-JMB-MV ECF No. 11, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/23/26 Page 2
of 4

3
III. 	Discussion
Here, Petitioner’s detention is governed by § 1226(a) because he was lawfully admitted
into the United States, but he subsequently overstayed his visa. See 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a).
“[P]rocedural due process entitles aliens detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), pending completion
of their removal proceedings, to a bond hearing before an immigration judge to determine whether
their ongoing detention is justified.” Leonardo v. Crawford, 646 F.3d 1157, 1159 (9th Cir. 2011);
see, e.g., 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).
In this case, Petitioner received a § 1226(a) bond hearing on December 29, 2025, before
the Detroit Immigration Court. At the bond hearing, the IJ denied bond because “[Petitioner] did
not establish he is not a flight risk.” (Order of the IJ, ECF No. 7-5, PageID.76.) In light of the
burden of proof applied at the December 29, 2025 bond hearing, for the reasons set forth in Soto-
Medina v. Lynch, No. 1:25-cv-1704, --- F. Supp. 3d ----, 2026 WL 161002, at *2 (W.D. Mich. Jan.
21, 2026), 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
Case 1:26-cv-00778-JMB-MV ECF No. 11, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/23/26 Page 3
of 4

4
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:
Jane M. Beckering
United States District Judge
April 23, 2026 	/s/ Jane M. Beckering
Case 1:26-cv-00778-JMB-MV ECF No. 11, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/23/26 Page 4
of 4