Arevalo v. Unknown Party et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
______
LUIS FRANCISCO PENA MARTINEZ,
proceeding by his next friend INGRID
ABIGAIL AREVALO,
Petitioner,
v.
U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS
ENFORCEMENT et al.,
Respondents.
____________________________/
Case No. 1:26-cv-989
Honorable Paul L. Maloney
OPINION
Ingrid Abigail Arevalo initiated this action by filing a pro se petition for a writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on behalf of her partner, Luis Francisco Pena Martinez, a
United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detainee currently detained at the
North Lake Processing Center located in Baldwin, Lake County, Michigan. 1 (Pet., ECF No. 1.)
For the following reasons, the Court will conditionally grant the petition for a writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
Discussion
I. 	Procedural History
In the § 2241 petition, Mr. Pena Martinez challenges the lawfulness of his current detention
and asks the Court to, inter alia, issue a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 either
1 The Court previously granted Ms. Arevalo permission to proceed on Mr. Pena Martinez’s
behalf as next friend. (Order, ECF No. 4.)
Case 1:26-cv-00989-PLM-RSK ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/21/26 Page 1
of 7

2
ordering Respondents to release him or ordering Respondents to conduct a bond hearing to satisfy
the requirements of due process. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.2.) 2
In an order entered on March 31, 2026, the Court directed Respondents to show cause,
within three business days, why the writ of habeas corpus and other relief requested should not be
granted. (Order, ECF No. 4.) Respondents filed their response on April 3, 2026. (ECF No. 5.)
II. 	Factual Background
Mr. Pena Martinez is a native and citizen of El Salvador who entered the United States at
an unknown time and location without inspection. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.1; Notice to Appear
(NTA), ECF No. 5-1, PageID.60.) Mr. Pena Martinez has no criminal history. (2025 Form I-213,
ECF No. 5-2, PageID.67.)
On October 14, 2025, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) agents encountered and
arrested Mr. Pena Martinez at a weigh station in Lowell, Indiana. (Id., PageID.66; Pet., ECF No.
1, PageID.1.) At that time, DHS issued Mr. Pena Martinez a Form I-862, NTA, charging him with
inadmissibility under §§ 212(a)(6)(A)(i) and 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) of the Immigration and Nationality
Act (INA) because he 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. 	5-1, 	PageID.63;
2025 Form I-213, ECF No. 5-2, PageID.66)
On March 4, 2026, an Immigration Judge (IJ) ordered Mr. Pena Martinez removed to
Ecuador, or in the alternative, Guatemala or Honduras. (Order of the IJ, ECF No. 5-4, PageID.72.)
2 In addition to filing the § 2241 petition, Petitioner also filed a motion for immediate release.
(ECF No. 2.) As set forth in this opinion, the Court will grant the § 2241 petition and order
Respondents to provide a bond hearing or release Mr. from custody. In light of this, the entry of
the Court’s opinion and corresponding judgment moots Petitioner’s pending motion.
Case 1:26-cv-00989-PLM-RSK ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/21/26 Page 2
of 7

3
Mr. Pena Martinez appealed the order of removal to the Board of Immigration Appeals, and the
appeal remains pending. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.1; Automated Case Information, ECF No. 5-5,
PageID.75.) Because Mr. Pena Martinez’s appeal to the BIA remains pending, the 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
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).
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 Mr. Pena Martinez’s appeal to the BIA remains pending,
§ 1231 does not apply, and § 1226(a) governs his 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-00989-PLM-RSK ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/21/26 Page 3
of 7

4
IV. 	Exhaustion
Respondents argue that the Court should deny Mr. Pena Martinez’s request for habeas
corpus relief because he has not exhausted his administrative remedies. Specifically, Respondents
argue that Mr. Pena Martinez should pursue a bond hearing and, if necessary, appeal any
unfavorable decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals.
The Court declines to enforce the doctrine of prudential exhaustion, 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 the § 2241 petition.
V. 	Merits Discussion
A. 	Statutory Basis for Detention
Respondents contend that Mr. Pena Martinez 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 Mr.
Pena Martinez, 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
Case 1:26-cv-00989-PLM-RSK ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/21/26 Page 4
of 7

5
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
Mr. Pena Martinez argues that his detention violates the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process
Clause. Respondents argue that Mr. Pena Martinez has received notice of the charges against him,
has access to counsel, may request hearings with an immigration judge, has 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 Mr. Pena Martinez’s current detention under the mandatory
detention framework set forth in § 1225(b)(2)(A) violates his 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).
VI. 	Other Claims and Other Forms of Relief
Because the Court will conditionally grant the § 2241 petition as set forth herein, the Court
does not address other claims and other requested relief in the § 2241 petition.
4 The Court is aware of Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, 166 F.4th 494 (5th Cir. 2026), which was
recently issued by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, and Avila v. Bondi,
No. 25-3248, --- F.4th ----, 2026 WL 819258 (8th Cir. Mar. 25, 2026), which was recently issued
by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. At this time, these non-binding cases
do not change the Court’s analysis.
Case 1:26-cv-00989-PLM-RSK ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/21/26 Page 5
of 7

6
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.5 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).
Conclusion
For the reasons discussed above, the Court will enter a judgment conditionally granting the
petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (ECF No. 1.) The Court will
order Respondents to provide Mr. Pena Martinez 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 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 Mr. Pena Martinez 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
5 The Court previously dismissed the warden of the North Lake Processing Center as a
Respondent, and added the ICE Detroit Field Office Director as a Respondent. (Order, ECF No.
4.)
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 or only release.
Case 1:26-cv-00989-PLM-RSK ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/21/26 Page 6
of 7

7
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: 	April 21, 2026 	/s/ Paul L. Maloney
Paul L. Maloney
United States District Judge
Case 1:26-cv-00989-PLM-RSK ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/21/26 Page 7
of 7