Freites Jimenez v. Blanche et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
______
IBRAHAN JOSE FREITES JIMENEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
TODD BLANCHE et al.,
Respondents.
____________________________/
Case No. 1:26-cv-1249
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.) The Court grants Petitioner leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 2.)
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, issue a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241
ordering Respondents to release Petitioner or to conduct a bond hearing. (Pet., ECF No. 1,
PageID.7.)1
1 In addition to filing his § 2241 petition, Petitioner filed a motion to appoint counsel. (ECF No. 3.)
There is no constitutional right to appointed counsel in habeas proceedings. Cobas v. Burgess, 306
F.3d 441, 444 (6th Cir. 2002) (citing McCleskey v. Zant, 499 U.S. 467, 495 (1987)); see 18 U.S.C.
Case 1:26-cv-01249-JMB-MV ECF No. 8, PageID.<pageID> Filed 05/05/26 Page 1
of 8

2
In an order entered on April 22, 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.) Respondents filed their response on April 27, 2026, (ECF
No. 6).
II. 	Factual Background
Petitioner is a native and citizen of Venezuela. (Notice to Appear (NTA), ECF No. 6-1,
PageID.114.) Petitioner entered the United States in approximately February of 2023 without
inspection. (See 2025 Form I-213, ECF No. 6-2, PageID.122.) Thereafter, Petitioner filed an
asylum application, which remains pending. (Id., PageID.121.) Subsequently, in 2024, Petitioner
applied for and was granted Temporary Protected Status (TPS) 2 from February 12, 2024, to April
2, 2025. (TPS Approval Notice, ECF No. 1-1, PageID.15.)
§ 3006A(a)(2)(B) (indicating that a federal court has the discretion to appoint counsel in a habeas
proceeding where “the interests of justice so require”). As set forth herein, the Court will
conditionally grant Petitioner’s § 2241 petition, and the Court finds no basis for the appointment
of counsel to assist Petitioner in this matter at this time. Therefore, Petitioner’s motion to appoint
counsel (ECF No. 3) is denied.
2 Under 8 U.S.C. § 1254a, the Secretary for the Department of Homeland Security
may designate a foreign state for TPS when nationals of that state cannot return
there safely due to armed conflict, natural disaster, or other “extraordinary and
temporary conditions,” unless the Secretary “finds that permitting the [noncitizens]
to remain temporarily in the United States is contrary to the national interest of the
United States.”
Nat’l TPS All. v. Noem, 150 F.4th 1000, 1010 (9th Cir. 2025) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1254a(b)(1)(C)).
“Such a designation permits certain nationals of the foreign state, who have continuously resided
in the United States since the effective date of the designation, to register for employment
authorization and protection from deportation for the duration of the TPS period.” Id. (quoting 8
U.S.C. § 1254a(a)(1), (b)(2)). Additionally, there are other restrictions, including, for example,
that applicants for TPS “must not have been ‘convicted of any felony or 2 or more misdemeanors
committed in the United States.’” Id. (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1254a(c)(2)(B)(i)). Further, “TPS does
not provide beneficiaries with a pathway to permanent resident status, nor does it include any right
to petition for visas on behalf of family members in the United States or abroad.” Id.
Case 1:26-cv-01249-JMB-MV ECF No. 8, PageID.<pageID> Filed 05/05/26 Page 2
of 8

3
On September 7, 2025, United States Customs and Border Protection encountered and
detained Petitioner at the Ambassador Bridge in Detroit, Michigan. (2025 Form I-213, ECF
No. 6-2, PageID.120.) At that time, the Department of Homeland Security 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. 6-1, PageID.114, 117.) Thereafter, on October 2, 2025, ICE
released Petitioner from custody on parole. (Parole Letter, ECF No. 1-1, PageID.14.) On October
8, 2025, when Petitioner reported to ICE, as instructed, ICE took Petitioner back into custody. (See
2026 Form I-213, ECF No. 6-7, PageID.136.) Based on the Parties’ filings, there is no indication
in the record that Petitioner is currently scheduled for any hearings in Immigration Court.
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.
“On January 17, 2025, Secretary Mayorkas extended the 2023 [TPS] Designation by eighteen
months, through October 2, 2026.” Nat’l TPS All. v. Noem, 166 F.4th 739, 751 (9th Cir. 2026)
(footnote and citation omitted). “The extension was set to become effective on April 3, 2025,” the
day after the 2023 TPS Designation was due to expire. Id. (citation omitted). “On January 24,
2025, DHS began drafting the decision to vacate the TPS extension” for Venezuela. Id. Thereafter,
on January 26, 2025, “DHS began drafting a termination of Venezuela’s TPS.” Id. On January 28,
2025, Secretary Noem signed off on the decision to vacate the January 17, 2025, extension of TPS
for Venezuela, meaning that the 2023 TPS Designation for Venezuela effectively expired on April
2, 2025. (Id.) Subsequently, on February 1, 2025, “Secretary Noem signed off on the termination
[of TPS]” for Venezuela. Id. (citation omitted). Secretary Noem did not terminate the 2021 TPS
Designation for Venezuela, however, the 2021 TPS Designation “had only been extended to
September 10, 2025.” Id. (citation omitted).
Case 1:26-cv-01249-JMB-MV ECF No. 8, PageID.<pageID> Filed 05/05/26 Page 3
of 8

4
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).
IV. 	Exhaustion
Respondents argue that the Court should deny Petitioner’s request for habeas corpus relief
because Petitioner has not exhausted his administrative remedies. Specifically, Respondents argue
that Petitioner 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 against Petitioner, 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 Petitioner’s § 2241 petition.
Case 1:26-cv-01249-JMB-MV ECF No. 8, PageID.<pageID> Filed 05/05/26 Page 4
of 8

5
V. 	Merits Discussion
A. 	Statutory Basis for Petitioner’s Detention
Respondents contend that Petitioner is subject to the mandatory detention provisions set
forth in 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) because Petitioner meets every element for detention under
§ 1225(b)(2), and the statute’s structure and history support Respondents’ interpretation. 3
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,
3 In addition to arguing that Respondents are unlawfully subjecting Petitioner to mandatory
detention under § 1225(b)(2), Petitioner contends that Respondents have unlawfully detained
Petitioner despite Petitioner’s TPS. Based on this, it appears that Petitioner seeks immediate
release, alleging a violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1254a(d)(4), which provides that if a noncitizen has TPS,
then the noncitizen “shall not be detained by the Attorney General on the basis of the alien’s
immigration status in the United States.” 8 U.S.C. § 1254a(d)(4). As set forth above, Secretary
Noem vacated the extension of the 2023 TPS Designation for Venezuela and then signed off on
the termination of TPS for Venezuela. See supra note 2. The validity of Secretary Noem’s actions
regarding TPS for Venezuela is currently being litigated. In October 2025, the United States
Supreme Court allowed the termination of TPS for Venezuela to take effect pending the
Government’s appeal and “disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari, if such writ is timely
sought.” Noem v. Nat’l TPS All., 146 S. Ct. 23, 24 (2025). On January 28, 2026, in National TPS
Alliance v. Noem, 166 F.4th 739 (9th Cir. 2026), the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit affirmed the United States District Court for the Northern District of California’s finding
that 	Secretary 	Noem 	exceeded 	her 	statutory 	authority 	by 	revoking 	TPS 	protections 	for
Venezuelans and Haitians. At this time, based on the procedural history of National TPS Alliance
v. Noem, this Ninth Circuit case does not affect the Court’s analysis in this habeas action. Cf. Nat’l
TPS All., 146 S. Ct. at 24 (allowing the termination of TPS for Venezuelan nationals to take effect
pending the Government’s appeal). Therefore, although the Court will conditionally grant
Petitioner’s § 2241 petition for the reasons set forth herein, the Court will not grant Petitioner’s
request for immediate release based on Petitioner’s prior TPS.
Case 1:26-cv-01249-JMB-MV ECF No. 8, PageID.<pageID> Filed 05/05/26 Page 5
of 8

6
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
of the charges against him, has access to counsel, and may attend hearings with an immigration
judge.
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).
VI. 	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.
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, 170
F.4th 1128 (8th Cir. 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-01249-JMB-MV ECF No. 8, PageID.<pageID> Filed 05/05/26 Page 6
of 8

7
VII. 	Proper Respondents
Respondents argue that the Detroit ICE Field Office Director is the only proper Respondent
in this action. The Court concludes that the Detroit ICE 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).
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 Detroit ICE Field Office Director and the ICE
Assistant Director as Respondents. The Court will dismiss the United States Attorney General as
a Respondent.
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 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.5 The Court will also order Respondents to file a status
5 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-01249-JMB-MV ECF No. 8, PageID.<pageID> Filed 05/05/26 Page 7
of 8

8
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: 	May 5, 2026 	/s/ Jane M. Beckering
Jane M. Beckering
United States District Judge
Case 1:26-cv-01249-JMB-MV ECF No. 8, PageID.<pageID> Filed 05/05/26 Page 8
of 8