Rodriguez Serrano v. Noem et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
______
TOMAS RODRIGUEZ SERRANO,
Petitioner,
v.
KRISTI NOEM et al.,
Respondents.
____________________________/
Case No. 1:25-cv-1320
Honorable Hala Y. Jarbou
OPINION
Petitioner Tomas Rodriguez Serrano initiated this action on October 29, 2025, by filing a
counseled combined petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and complaint
for emergency injunctive relief. (§ 2241 Pet., ECF No. 1.) Petitioner is a United States Immigration
and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detainee currently detained at the North Lake Processing Center
located in Baldwin, Lake County, Michigan.
Petitioner challenges the lawfulness of his current detention and asks the Court for the
following relief: accept jurisdiction over this matter; order Respondents not to transfer Petitioner
out of the Western District of Michigan during the pendency of the proceedings; declare that
Respondents’ actions to detain Petitioner violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment
and the Immigration and Nationality Act; issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241 and order Respondents to schedule a bond hearing for Petitioner’s removal proceedings
within 5 days of the order and accept jurisdiction to issue a bond order; and award reasonable
attorneys’ fees and costs. (§ 2241 Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.17–18.)
Case 1:25-cv-01320-HYJ-SJB ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/07/25 Page 1
of 17

2
In an order (ECF No. 3) entered on October 30, 2025, 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. Respondents filed their response (ECF No. 4), and Petitioner
filed his reply (ECF No. 5) on November 4, 2025. For the following reasons, the Court will grant
Petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
Discussion
I. 	Factual Allegations
Petitioner is a native and citizen of Mexico. (Cooper Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 4-1, PageID.49.)
Respondents represent that Petitioner “last entered the United States at an unknown place, on an
unknown date without being inspected and admitted or paroled by immigration officials.” (Id.)
Petitioner represents that he had “been present in the United States for over twenty years.” (§ 2241
Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.1.) Petitioner lives in Illinois with his wife and three children. (Id.,
PageID.4.)
On September 4, 2025, the United States Border Patrol (USBP) arrested Petitioner in
Warren, Michigan, “after he was encountered by the Warren Police Department on a traffic stop.”
(Cooper Decl. ¶ 5, ECF No. 4-1, PageID.49.) That same day, ICE charged Petitioner with
inadmissibility pursuant to § 212(a)(6)(A)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA)
because Petitioner was an “immigrant who was present in the United States without having been
admitted or paroled, or who arrived at a time or place not designated by the Attorney General.”
(Id. 	¶ 	6, 	PageID.50.) 	Agents 	also 	charged 	Petitioner 	with 	inadmissibility 	pursuant 	to
§ 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) of the INA
as an immigrant who, at the time of application for admission, is not in possession
of a valid unexpired immigrant visa, reentry permit, border crossing card, or other
valid entry document required by the Act, and a valid unexpired passport, or other
suitable travel document, or document of identity and nationality as required under
the regulations issued by the Attorney General under section 211(a) of the Act.
Case 1:25-cv-01320-HYJ-SJB ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/07/25 Page 2
of 17

3
(Id.) ICE detained Petitioner pursuant to § 235 of the INA because Petitioner is, according to
Respondents, “an applicant for admission to the United States seeking admission and he is not
clearly and beyond doubt entitled to admission.” (Id. ¶ 7.)
On September 18, 2025, Petitioner appeared with counsel “for a master calendar hearing
before an immigration judge in the Detroit Immigration Court.” (Id. ¶ 8, PageID.50–51.) Petitioner
“admitted the factual allegations contained in the [Notice to Appear (NTA)] and conceded the
charges of inadmissibility, and Mexico was ordered as the country of removal.” (Id.) Petitioner
appeared before the Detroit Immigration Court again for a master calendar hearing on October 14,
2025, but his case was continued due to Petitioner’s attorney not being present. (Id. ¶ 9,
PageID.51.) That same day, Petitioner filed a Form EOPIR-42B, Application for Cancellation of
Removal and Adjustment of Status for Certain Nonpermanent Residents. (Id.)
Petitioner is “currently in removal proceedings on the detained docket before the Detroit
Immigration Court.” (Id. ¶ 10.) He is scheduled to appear for a master calendar hearing on
November 5, 2025. (Id.) Petitioner has not requested a bond hearing. (Id. ¶ 7, PageID.50.)
II. 	Exhaustion
Respondents first contend that this Court should deny Petitioner’s request for habeas
corpus relief because Petitioner has not exhausted his administrative remedies. (ECF No. 4,
PageID.26.) Specifically, Respondents argue that Petitioner has yet to request a bond hearing, and
that if he were to do so and the immigration court denied his request for bond, Petitioner “would
have the right to appeal any unfavorable decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA).”
(Id.) In his reply, Petitioner contends that exhaustion should be waived because seeking an appeal
to the BIA would be futile. (ECF No. 5, PageID.53.)
Here, no applicable statute or rule mandates administrative exhaustion by Petitioner. Thus,
whether to require exhaustion is within this Court’s “sound judicial discretion.” See Shearson v.
Case 1:25-cv-01320-HYJ-SJB ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/07/25 Page 3
of 17

4
Holder, 725 F.3d 588, 593 (6th Cir. 2013) (quoting McCarthy v. Madigan, 503 U.S. 140, 145
(1992)). This discretion is referred to as “prudential” exhaustion, Island Creek Coal Co. v. Bryan,
937 F.3d 738, 746 (6th Cir. 2019), and such a court-made exhaustion rule must comply with
statutory schemes and Congressional intent, Shearson, 725 F.3d at 593–94. Notably, the United
States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has not yet decided “whether courts should impose
administrative exhaustion in the context of a noncitizen’s habeas petition for unlawful mandatory
detention.” See Pizzaro Reyes v. Raycraft, No. 25-cv-12546, 2025 WL 2609425, at *3 (E.D. Mich.
Sept. 9, 2025) (citing Hernandez v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., No. 1:25-cv-1621, 2025 WL
2444114, at *8 (N.D. Ohio Aug. 25, 2025)). However, courts within the Sixth Circuit “have applied
the three-factor test, set forth in United States v. California Care Corp., 709 F.2d 1241 (9th Cir.
1983),” to determine whether prudential exhaustion should be required. See Lopez-Campos v.
Raycraft, No. 2:25-cv-12486, 2025 WL 2496379, at *4 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 29, 2025). Thus,
[c]ourts may require prudential exhaustion when:
(1) agency expertise makes agency consideration necessary to generate a proper
record and reach a proper decision;
(2) relaxation of the requirement would encourage the deliberate bypass of the
administrative scheme; and
(3) administrative review is likely to allow the agency to correct its own mistakes
and to preclude the need for judicial review.
Id. (citing Shweika v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., No. 1:06-cv-11781, 2015 WL 6541689, at *12
(E.D. Mich. Oct. 29, 2015)).
Upon consideration of these factors, this Court concludes that prudential exhaustion should
not be required in Petitioner’s case. First, the central question presented by Petitioner’s § 2241
petition is whether 8 U.S.C. § 1225 or 8 U.S.C. § 1226 applies to Petitioner. That determination
relies upon a purely legal question of statutory interpretation and does not require the record that
Case 1:25-cv-01320-HYJ-SJB ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/07/25 Page 4
of 17

5
would be developed should the Court require Petitioner to exhaust his administrative remedies.
Moreover, this Court is not bound by and is not required to give deference to any agency
interpretation of a statute. See Loper Bright Enter. v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369, 413 (2024) (noting
that “courts need not and under the [Administrative Procedure Act (APA)] may not defer to an
agency interpretation of the law simply because a statute is ambiguous”).
Second, Petitioner’s constitutional challenge to his detention does not require exhaustion.
The Sixth Circuit has noted that due process challenges, such as the one raised by Petitioner here,
generally do not require exhaustion because the BIA cannot review constitutional challenges. See
Sterkaj v. Gonzalez, 439 F.3d 273, 279 (6th Cir. 2006). Finally, it is doubtful that BIA review of
Petitioner’s custody would preclude the need for judicial review. The Court reaches that
conclusion based upon the fact that the Government has clearly set forth its belief that
§ 1225(b)(1)(A) applies to all aliens who have resided within the United States prior to their arrest
and detention. Notably, the BIA recently proclaimed that any individual who has ever entered the
United States unlawfully and was later detained is no longer eligible for bond and is subject to
mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A). See Matter of Yajure Hurtado, 29 I. & N. Dec. 216,
229 (2025). It is simply unlikely that any administrative review by the BIA would lead to the
Government changing its position and precluding judicial review of Petitioner’s § 2241 petition.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, this Court concludes that prudential exhaustion is not
required.
Alternatively, even in situations where a court may ordinarily apply prudential exhaustion,
the court may still choose to waive exhaustion. See Lopez-Campos, 2025 WL 2496379, at *4. A
court may choose to rule upon the merits of the issues presented when the “legal question is fit for
resolution and delay means hardship.” See Shalala v. Ill. Council on Long Term Care, Inc., 529
Case 1:25-cv-01320-HYJ-SJB ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/07/25 Page 5
of 17

6
U.S. 1, 13 (2000) (citation omitted). A court may also waive exhaustion if the “pursuit of
administrative remedies would be a futile gesture.” Shearson, 725 F.3d at 594 (citation omitted).
Here, there is no question that delay would result in hardship to Petitioner. First, as noted
above, Petitioner would need to request a bond determination hearing before an immigration judge.
There is no evidence in the record as to how long Petitioner would have to wait until such a hearing,
if any, were scheduled. Petitioner’s request would likely be denied given the BIA’s recent decision
in Yajure Hurtado. Then, Petitioner would have the opportunity to appeal any unfavorable decision
to the BIA. Appeals of bond denials “typically take six months or more to be resolved at the BIA.”
See Rodriguez v. Bostock, 779 F. Supp. 3d 1239. 1245 (W.D. Wash. 2025). However, the record
is silent as to when Petitioner will be scheduled for his final merits hearing. It is possible that a
determination from the BIA as to whether Petitioner is entitled to bond would come before any
final decision regarding removal. Nevertheless, it is unmistakable that “depriving [Petitioner] of
his liberty while awaiting a BIA appeal decision certainly equates to hardship. And any delay
results in the very harm [Petitioner] is trying to avoid . . . – detention.” See Lopez-Campos, 2025
WL 2496379, at *5.
In sum, the Court declines to enforce the doctrine of prudential exhaustion against
Petitioner. Moreover, even if the Court were to conclude that prudential exhaustion is warranted,
the Court concludes in the alternative that waiver of exhaustion is appropriate. Accordingly, the
Court will proceed to address the merits of Petitioner’s § 2241 petition.
III. 	Merits Discussion
A. 	Statutory Basis for Petitioner’s Detention
Petitioner contends that Respondents have violated the INA by concluding that Petitioner
is detained pursuant to the mandatory detention provisions set forth in 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2).
(§ 2241 Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.16.) According to Petitioner, noncitizens who “previously entered
Case 1:25-cv-01320-HYJ-SJB ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/07/25 Page 6
of 17

7
the country and have been residing in the United States prior to being apprehended and placed in
removal proceedings” are detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) “and are eligible for release on
bond, “unless they are subject to § 1225(b)(1), § 1226(c), or § 1231.” (Id., PageID.17.)
Respondents, however, contend that Petitioner “unambiguously meets every element for detention
under § 1225(b)(2),” and that “even if the text of § 1225(b)(2) were ambiguous, its structure and
history support the agency’s interpretation of the statute.” (ECF No. 4, PageID.29.)
In order to address the parties’ arguments, this Court must engage in principles of statutory
interpretation. “A statute should be construed so that effect is given to all its provisions.” Corey v.
United States, 556 U.S. 303, 314 (2009); see also Kentucky v. Biden, 23 F.4th 585, 603 (6th Cir.
2022 (noting how courts “must give effect to the clear meaning of statutes as written”). When
engaging in statutory interpretation, the Court’s “inquiry ‘begins with the statutory text, and ends
there as well if the text is unambiguous.’” See In re Vill. Apothecary, Inc., 45 F.4th 940, 947 (6th
Cir. 2022) (quoting Binno v. Am. Bar Ass’n, 826 F.3d 338, 346 (6th Cir. 2016)). But, “the
‘meaning—or ambiguity—of certain words or phrases may only become evident when placed in
context.’” King v. Burwell, 576 U.S. 473, 486 (2015) (quoting FDA v. Brown & Williamson
Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 120, 132 (2000)). “The words of a statute must be read in their context
and with a view to their place in the overall statutory scheme.” Roberts v. Sea-Land Servs., Inc.,
566 U.S. 93, 101 (2012). This Court must also “use every tool at [its] disposal to determine the
best reading of the statute.” Raimondo, 603 U.S. at 400.
With these principles in mind, the Court begins with the language of the statutes in
question. Section 1225(b)(2)(a) provides that “in the case of an alien who is an applicant for
admission, if the examining immigration officer determines that an alien seeking admission is not
clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted, the alien shall be detained for a proceeding
Case 1:25-cv-01320-HYJ-SJB ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/07/25 Page 7
of 17

8
under section 1229a of this title.” See 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(a). An “applicant for admission” is
defined as “[a]n alien present in the United States who has not been admitted or who arrives in the
United States.” See id. § 1225(a)(1). The INA further defines “admission” and “admitted” as “the
lawful entry of the alien into the United States after inspection and authorization by an immigration
officer.” See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(13). Section 1226(a), on the other hand, states that “[o]n a warrant
issued by the Attorney General, an alien may be arrested and detained pending a decision on
whether the alien is to be removed from the United States.” See 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a).
Respondents argue that Petitioner “unambiguously is an ‘applicant for admission’ under
the plain text of [§ 1225] because he is a noncitizen, he was not admitted to the United States, and
he was present in the United States when he was apprehended.” (ECF No. 4, PageID.30 (citing 8
U.S.C. § 1225(a)(1); Dep’t of Homeland Sec. v. Thuraissigiam, 591 U.S. 103, 140 (2020)).
Respondents further assert that because “Petitioner has not agreed immediately to depart, logically
he must be seeking to remain—a legal action that requires ‘admission,’ i.e., a lawful entry.” (Id.,
PageID.31.) Respondents also argue that “applicant for admission” presumptively “characterizes
all unlawfully present noncitizens as applying for admission until they are either removed or
successfully obtain a lawful entry, regardless of their subjective intent.” (Id.) Essentially,
Respondents assert that § 1225(b)(2)(A) mandates the detention of any noncitizen who is “present”
in the United States and who has not been lawfully admitted. However, for the reasons discussed
below, this Court agrees with the numerous other courts in the country that have concluded that
Respondents’ interpretation of the statute is too broad.
As set forth supra, § 1225(b)(2)(A) provides for the detention of an “alien seeking
admission” after an “examining immigration officer” determines that the alien “is not clearly and
beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted.” In this Court’s opinion, the phrase “seeking admission”
Case 1:25-cv-01320-HYJ-SJB ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/07/25 Page 8
of 17

9
refers to an action that is currently occurring and that would occur at the United States’ border
when the alien is being inspected. Here, under the facts and circumstances of Petitioner’s case, an
“examining immigration officer” did not make a determination as to whether Petitioner was not
clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted when Petitioner came into the United States
over twenty years ago. Petitioner was not crossing the border when he was arrested and detained.
Instead, Petitioner was arrested and detained on September 4, 2025, in Warren, Michigan,
following a traffic stop. (Cooper Decl. ¶ 5, ECF No. 4-1, PageID.49.) Furthermore, while the
record indicates that Petitioner initiated cancellation of removal and adjustment of status
proceedings on October 14, 2025 (see id. ¶ 9, PageID.51), there is nothing in the record currently
before the Court to suggest that Petitioner had ever attempted to gain lawful status in the United
States since entering the country over twenty years ago until his arrest and detention.
In light of the foregoing, the Court concludes that § 1225(b)(2)(A) applies to noncitizens
undergoing inspection, which generally occurs at the United States’ border, when they are seeking
lawful entry into the United States. Thus, because the record clearly shows that Petitioner resided
in the United States for over twenty years before being arrested and detained, there is simply no
logical reason to interpret § 1225(b)(2)(A) as applying to Petitioner given that Petitioner was not
actively “seeking admission” during those twenty years.
Unlike § 1225(b)(2)(A), section 1226(a) provides that, when dealing with “apprehension
and detention of aliens,” the Attorney General may issue a warrant and “arrest[] or detain[] [an
alien] pending a decision on whether the alien is to be removed from the United States.” See 8
U.S.C. § 1226(a). Here, § 1226(a) clearly applies to Petitioner’s situation—Petitioner was
apprehended in Warren, Michigan, arrested, and detained. Petitioner has been detained pending
removal proceedings before an immigration judge; thus, under § 1226(a), the Attorney General
Case 1:25-cv-01320-HYJ-SJB ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/07/25 Page 9
of 17

10
has discretion to either detain or release Petitioner on bond or conditional parole. This language
clearly allows the alien to request a bond redetermination by an immigration judge.
This Court’s conclusion is consistent with the Supreme Court’s clarification that sections
1225 and 1226 apply in different circumstances. See Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281 (2018).
As the Jennings Court noted, § 1225 is part of the “process of decision [that] generally begins at
the Nation’s borders and ports of entry, where the Government must determine whether an alien
seeking to enter the country is admissible.” Jennings, 583 U.S. at 287. Section 1226, however,
applies to the process of “arresting and detaining” aliens who are already living within the United
States but are still subject to removal. See id. at 287. Thus, in Jennings, the Supreme Court
differentiated between noncitizens arriving to the United States, who are, therefore, governed by
§ 1225, and noncitizens already present in the country and who are, accordingly, governed by
§ 1226.
Moreover, the Court cannot ignore Congressional intent when conducting statutory
analysis. Recently, Congress passed the Laken Riley Act, which amended § 1226 to prescribe a
subset of noncitizens who are exempt from the discretionary bond analysis. Specifically, the Act
added a subsection that explicitly mandates detention for those noncitizens who are inadmissible
under §§ 1182(a)(6)(A), 1182(a)(6)(C), and 1182(a)(7), and who have been arrested for, charged
with, or convicted of certain crimes. See 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c)(1)(E). Quite simply, were the Court
to agree with Respondents’ interpretation of §§ 1225 and 1226, § 1226(c)(1)(E) would be rendered
entirely superfluous.
The Court concludes that § 1226(a), and not § 1225(b)(2)(A), governs noncitizens, such as
Petitioner, who have resided in the United States for several years and were already within the
United States when apprehended and arrested. The reading of the pertinent statutes clearly supports
Case 1:25-cv-01320-HYJ-SJB ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/07/25 Page 10
of 17

11
this conclusion. This Court has recently reached the same conclusion in several other habeas
corpus matter filed by ICE detainees. 1 Moreover, this Court is far from the first federal district
court to reach this conclusion.2
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, Petitioner’s case is governed by § 1226(a), and he
is subject to the discretionary bond determination set forth therein.
B. 	Fifth Amendment Due Process Considerations
Petitioner also argues that his detention violates the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process
Clause. (§ 2241 Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.15.) Petitioner avers that “there is no question that the
1 See Ruiz Mejia v. Noem, No. 1:25-cv-1227, 2025 WL 3041827, at *5–6 (W.D. Mich. Oct. 31,
2025); De Jesus Ramirez v. Noem, No. 1:25-cv-1261, 2025 WL 3039266, at *5 (W.D. Mich. Oct.
31, 2025); Escobar-Ruiz v. Raycraft, No. 1:25-cv-1232, 2025 WL 3039255, at *5 (W.D. Mich.
Oct. 31, 2025); Marin Garcia v. Noem, No. 1:25-cv-1271, 2025 WL 3017200, at *5 (W.D. Mich.
Oct. 29, 2025); Cervantes Rodriguez v. Noem, No. 1:25-cv-1196, 2025 WL 3022212, at *6 (W.D.
Mich. Oct. 29, 2025); Puerto-Hernandez v. Lynch, No. 1:25-cv-1097, 2025 WL 3012033, at *9
(W.D. Mich. Oct. 28, 2025); Rodriguez Carmona v. Noem, No. 1:25-cv-1131, 2025 WL 2992222,
at *6 (W.D. Mich. Oct. 24, 2025); Sanchez Alvarez v. Noem, No. 1:25-cv-1090, 2025 WL 2942648,
at *6 (W.D. Mich. Oct. 17, 2025).
2 See, e.g., Lopez-Campos, 2025 WL 2496379, at *8; see also Rodriguez, 779 F. Supp. 3d at 1256–
61; Singh v. Lewis, No. 4:25-cv-96-RGJ, 2025 WL 2699219, at *3–5 (W.D. Ky. Sept. 22, 2025);
Lopez-Arevelo v. Ripa, No. EP-25-CV-337-KC, 2025 WL 2691828, at *7–12 (W.D. Tex. Sept. 22,
2025); Campos Leon v. Forestal, 1:25-cv-1774-SEB-MJD, 2025 WL 2694763, at *2–5 (S.D. Ind.
Sept. 22, 2025); Hasan v. Crawford, No. 1:25-cv-1408 (LMB/IDD), 2025 WL 2682255, at *5–9
(E.D. Va. Sept. 19, 2025); Garcia Cortes v. Noem, No. 1:25-cv-2677-CNS, 2025 WL 2652880, at
*2–3 (D. Colo. Sept. 16, 2025); Kostak v. Trump et al., No. 3:25-cv-01093-JE-KDM, 2025 WL
2472136, at *2–4 (W.D. La. Aug. 27, 2025); Romero v. Hyde, No. 1:25-cv-11631-BEM, 2025 WL
2403827, at *8–13 (D. Mass. Aug. 19, 2025); Maldonado v. Olson, No. 0:25-cv-03142-SRN-SGE,
2025 WL 2374411, at *9–16 (D. Minn. Aug. 15, 2025); dos Santos v. Noem, No. 1:25-cv-12052-
JEK, 2025 WL 2370988, at *6–9 (D. Mass. Aug. 14, 2025); Lopez Benitez v. Francis, No. 1:25-
cv-05937-DEH, 2025 WL 2371588, at *3–9 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 13, 2025); Rosado v. Figueroa, No.
2:25-cv-02157-DLR, 2025 WL 2337099, at *6–11 (D. Ariz. Aug. 11, 2025), report and
recommendation adopted, 2025 WL 2349133 (D. Ariz. Aug. 13, 2025); Gomes v. Hyde, No. 1:25-
cv-11571-JEK, 2025 WL 1869299, at *6–8 (D. Mass. July 7, 2025). This is just a representative
sampling of the various federal district courts that have reached the same conclusion as this Court.
In his reply, Petitioner has set forth an “overall sample of recent circuits that have all disagreed
with Respondents’ interpretation and have subsequently granted relief to habeas petitions.” (ECF
No. 5, PageID.58–60.)
Case 1:25-cv-01320-HYJ-SJB ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/07/25 Page 11
of 17

12
[G]overnment has deprived Petitioner of his liberty by refusing him the opportunity to request a
bond hearing.” (Id.) Petitioner contends that “[t]here is no credible argument that Petitioner cannot
be safety released back to his community and family.” (Id., PageID.15–16.) According to
Petitioner, “[b]y issuing its decision in Matter of Yajure Hurtado, the BIA has taken nearly all
bond 	authority 	away 	from 	Immigration 	Judges.” 	(Id., 	PageID.16.) 	Respondents 	counter
Petitioner’s arguments by stating that Petitioner has received due process because he “received
notice of the charges against him, has access to counsel, has attended hearings with an immigration
judge, may request bond, has the right to appeal the denial of any request for bond, and has been
detained by ICE for less than two months.” (ECF No. 4, PageID.44.) Respondents also contend
that Petitioner is not due any further process because Petitioner “admits that he entered the country
without inspection and evaded detection for more than two decades.” (Id.)
“Freedom from imprisonment—from government custody, detention, or other forms of
physical restraint—lies at the heart of the liberty that [the Due Process Clause] protects.” See
Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 690 (2001). The Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause extends
to all persons, regardless of status. See A.A.R.P. v. Trump, 605 U.S. 91, 94 (2025). Thus,
noncitizens such as Petitioner are entitled to its protections. See id.; see also Chavez-Acosta v.
Garland, No. 22-3045, 2023 WL 236837, at *4 (6th Cir. Jan. 18, 2023).
Granted, if this Court agreed with Respondents that Petitioner’s detention is governed by
§ 1225(b)(2)(A), the Government’s due process argument might hold true. However, as set forth
supra, this Court does not agree with Respondents that Petitioner’s detention is governed by
§ 1225(b)(2)(A). Instead, Petitioner’s detention is governed by § 1226(a). Section 1226(a) clearly
sets forth a discretionary framework for detention or release of an alien subject to that provision.
The statute explicitly allows the Attorney General to continue to detain the arrested alien, or release
Case 1:25-cv-01320-HYJ-SJB ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/07/25 Page 12
of 17

13
the alien with either “bond of at least $1,500 with security approved by, and containing conditions
prescribed by, the Attorney General,” or “conditional parole.” See 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a)(1), (2). This
discretionary 	framework 	“requires 	a 	bond 	hearing 	to 	make 	an 	individualized 	custody
determination.” See Lopez-Campos, 2025 WL 2496379, at *9.
The Sixth Circuit has held that the balancing test set forth in Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S.
319 (1976), regarding the adequacy of process, applies in the context of immigration detention.
See United States v. Silvestre-Gregorio, 983 F.3d 848, 852 (6th Cir. 2020). Thus, under Mathews,
this Court must consider the following three factors: “(1) the private interest that will be affected
by the official action; (2) the risk of erroneous deprivation of that interest; and (3) the government’s
interest, including the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedures
entail.” See Lopez-Campos, 2025 WL 2496379, at *9 (citing Mathews, 424 U.S. at 335).
The first Mathews factor clearly weighs in favor of Petitioner. There is no dispute that
Petitioner has a significant private interest in avoiding detention, as one of the “most elemental of
liberty interests” is to be free from detention. See Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 529 (2004).
The Court may also consider Petitioner’s conditions of confinement, i.e., “whether a detainee is
held in conditions indistinguishable from criminal incarceration.” See Günaydin v. Trump, No. 25-
CV-01151 (JMB/DLM), 2025 WL 1459154 at *7 (D. Minn. May 21, 2025) (citing Hernandez-
Lara v. Lyons, 10 F.4th 19, 27 (1st Cir. 2021); Velasco Lopez v. Decker, 978 F.3d 842, 851 (2d
Cir. 2020)). Petitioner, through counsel, represents that he “lives with his wife, a lawful permanent
resident, and his U.S. Citizen children. He is the primary financial support for the family.” (§ 2241
Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.1.) Petitioner avers that he has “been gainfully employed as a roofer for
the last several years.” (Id., PageID.2.) Here, Petitioner is now detained at a processing center that
is in a different state than his home and support system, and there can be no doubt that he is
Case 1:25-cv-01320-HYJ-SJB ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/07/25 Page 13
of 17

14
“experiencing [many of] the deprivations of incarceration, including loss of contact with friends
and family, loss of income earning, . . . lack of privacy, and, most fundamentally, the lack of
freedom of movement.” See Günaydin, 2025 WL 1459154 at *7.
Likewise, the second Mathews factor weighs in Petitioner’s favor. Clearly, there is a high
risk of erroneously depriving Petitioner of his freedom should he not receive an individualized
bond hearing at which the immigration judge can assess whether Petitioner poses a flight risk
and/or a danger to the community.
Finally, under the third Mathews factor, the Court recognizes that the Government “does,
indeed, have a legitimate interest in ensuring noncitizens’ appearance at removal proceedings and
preventing harms to the community.” See Sampiao v. Hyde, No. 1:25-cv-11981-JEK, 2025 WL
2607924, at *12 (D. Mass. Sept. 9, 2025). However, on the record before the Court, Respondents
have not shown that they have a significant interest in Petitioner’s continued detention. Notably,
continuing to enforce Petitioner’s detention would likely impose more costs upon the Government,
as it would be required to continue funding and overseeing Petitioner’s detention. See id.
In sum, the Court’s balancing of the Mathews factors weighs in Petitioner’s favor.
Accordingly, 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.
IV. 	Prohibition on Transfer and Proper Respondents
Petitioner requests that the Court order Respondents “not to transfer Petitioner out of the
Western District of Michigan during the pendency of these proceedings to preserve jurisdiction
and access to counsel.” (§ 2241 Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.17.)
Case 1:25-cv-01320-HYJ-SJB ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/07/25 Page 14
of 17

15
“The writ of habeas corpus does not act upon the prisoner who seeks relief, but upon the
person who holds him in what is alleged to be unlawful custody.” Braden v. 30th Jud. Circuit Ct.
of Ky., 410 U.S. 494–95 (1973). Thus,
[r]ead literally, the language of [§] 2241(a) requires nothing more than that the court
issuing the writ have jurisdiction over the custodian. So long as the custodian can
be reached by service of process, the court can issue a writ ‘within its jurisdiction’
requiring that the prisoner be brought before the court for a hearing on his claim,
or requiring that he be released outright from custody, even if the prisoner himself
is confined outside the court's territorial jurisdiction.
Id. at 495.
The Sixth Circuit has “conclude[d] that a detained alien generally must designate his
immediate custodian—the INS District Director for the district where he is being detained—as the
respondent to his habeas corpus petition.” Roman v. Ashcroft, 340 F.3d 314, 322 (6th Cir. 2003).
Here, Petitioner has named Robert Lynch, the ICE Field Office Director, and Kristi Noem,
Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, as Respondents. Respondents request that
Secretary Noem be dismissed because the “Detroit ICE Field Office Director [is] the proper
respondent.” (ECF No. 4, PageID.45.)
In Roman, the Sixth Circuit stated that while it “conclude[d] that the immediate custodian
rule generally applies to alien habeas corpus petitioners, [there is] the possibility of exceptions to
this rule.” Roman, 340 F.3d at 322. The Roman court went on to note:
Some courts are also willing to make an exception to the immediate custodian rule
in other extraordinary circumstances. For example, courts have noted the INS’s
ability, as a practical matter, to deny aliens any meaningful opportunity to seek
habeas corpus relief simply by transferring aliens to another district any time they
filed a habeas corpus petition. Chavez–Rivas, 194 F. Supp. 2d at 374. Aliens
remaining in detention for extended periods are often transferred several times
during their detention. See Lee v. Ashcroft, 216 F. Supp. 2d 51, 55 (E.D.N.Y. 2002)
(“[T]he location of custody, and the identity of the day-to-day custodian, frequently
change when detainees are transferred among INS facilities, all of which are under
the control of the Attorney General.”); Rosenbloom, supra, at 549. In light of these
transfers, one court reasoned that an alien may properly name a respondent other
than his immediate custodian because a petition naming a higher level official, such
Case 1:25-cv-01320-HYJ-SJB ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/07/25 Page 15
of 17

16
as the Attorney General, could be adjudicated without interruption in the event of
a transfer. Arias–Agramonte, 2000 WL 1617999, at *8 (explaining that a petition
naming only one’s immediate custodian would be dismissed when the alien was
transferred to another local district).
Id. at 325–26. Thus, the Sixth Circuit concluded, “an exception might be appropriate if the INS
were to exercise its transfer power in a clear effort to evade an alien’s habeas petitions.” Id. at 326.
In light of the foregoing, the Court recognizes the need to ensure that Respondents maintain
authority to enforce this Court’s grant of habeas relief and directive that Petitioner receive a bond
hearing or, alternatively, be released in the event that Petitioner is transferred out of the Western
District of Michigan. The Court, therefore, will not dismiss Secretary Noem as a Respondent to
these proceedings.
V. 	Summary
For the reasons set forth above, the Court disagrees with Respondents that Petitioner’s
detention is governed by § 1225(b)(2)(A) and, therefore, that Petitioner is subject to mandatory
detention. Instead, the Court concludes that Petitioner’s detention is governed by § 1226(a) and,
therefore, that Petitioner is entitled to a discretionary and individualized bond determination as set
forth in that statute. Likewise, the Court finds that because Petitioner’s detention is governed by
§ 1226(a), his current detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A) violates Petitioner’s Fifth Amendment due
process rights. While Petitioner is entitled to a bond hearing, the Court notes that the immigration
judge is in a better position to evaluate whether Petitioner poses a flight risk and a danger to the
community. Accordingly, the Court leaves to the immigration judge’s sound discretion a
determination on that issue.
Conclusion
For the reasons discussed above, the Court will enter a judgment conditionally granting
Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (ECF No. 1.) The
Case 1:25-cv-01320-HYJ-SJB ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/07/25 Page 16
of 17

17
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 accompanying judgment 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
accompanying judgment to certify compliance with this opinion. The status report shall include if
and when the bond hearing occurred, if bond was granted or denied, and if bond was denied, the
reasons for the denial.
Dated: November 7, 2025 	/s/ Hala Y. Jarbou
HALA Y. JARBOU
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 1:25-cv-01320-HYJ-SJB ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/07/25 Page 17
of 17