Gutierrez Padilla v. Noem et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERNDIVISION
______
FERNANDO GUTIERREZ PADILLA,
Petitioner,
v.
KRISTI NOEM et al.,
Respondents.
____________________________/
Case No. 1:25-cv-1667
Hon. Hala Y. Jarbou
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 on December 16, 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. (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, Petitioner challenges the lawfulness of his current detention
and asks the Court to, inter alia, declare that Respondents’ actions to detain Petitioner violate the
Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), and
issue a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 ordering Respondents to conduct a
bond hearing to satisfy the requirements of due process. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.32.) Petitioner
also sought a temporary restraining order compelling Respondents to conduct a bond hearing to
Case 1:25-cv-01667-HYJ-MV ECF No. 9, PageID.<pageID> Filed 01/06/26 Page 1
of 6

2
satisfy the requirements of due process. (Id., PageID.2.) Alternatively, Petitioner asked the Court
to order Respondents to show cause, within three days, why the petition should not be granted.
(Id.)
In an order entered on December 8, 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. (Order, ECF No.3.) Respondents filed their response on December 10, 2025,
(ECF No. 4), and Petitioner filed his reply on December 10, 2025, (ECF No. 5).
Based upon the information contained within Respondents’ response, the Court ordered
the Parties to provide further information describing the factual circumstances surrounding
Petitioner’s release from custody following a 2022 Notice to Appear (NTA). (ECF No. 6.) The
Parties filed their supplemental responses on December 19, 2025. (ECF Nos. 7, 8.)
II. Factual Background
Petitioner is a native and citizen of Mexico. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.1.) He entered the
United States on or about May 29, 2022, at the San Ysidro Pedestrian West Facility. (Notice to
Appear (NTA), ECF No. 4-1, PageID.65.) That same day, the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS) issued Petitioner an NTA, charging him with inadmissibility under § 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) of
the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) because Petitioner is an immigrant “who, at the time
of application for admission, is not in possession of a valid unexpired [immigration or travel
document].” (Id., PageID.68.) Petitioner was “paroled into the United States pending 240
proceedings” pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5)(A). (I-213, ECF No. 7-1, PageID.89 1; I-94, ECF
1 The phrase “parole into the United States,” as distinct from “conditional parole” under § 1226
of the INA, specifically refers to parole pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5)(A), which allows the
executive to permit certain aliens “on a case-by-case basis” to enter or remain in this country
only for “urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit.” Cruz-Miguel v. Holder, 650
F.3d 189, 198 (2d Cir. 2011).
Case 1:25-cv-01667-HYJ-MV ECF No. 9, PageID.<pageID> Filed 01/06/26 Page 2
of 6

3
No. 7-2, PageID.91 (indicating that Petitioner’s “Class of Admission” as “DT”)2). Petitioner’s
parole expired on May 28, 2023. (I-94, ECF No. 7-2, PageID.91.) Petitioner has remained in the
United States since that time.
On October 23, 2025, Petitioner was encountered and arrested by ICE officers without a
warrant. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.2.) Petitioner has not been provided with a bond hearing. (Id.,
PageID.5.)
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).
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 (BIA).
2 See United States Citizenship and Immigration Services Guidance Website, https://www.uscis.
gov/save/current-user-agencies/guidance/faqs-on-the-effect-of-changes-to-parole-and-temporary-
protected-status-tps-for-save-agencies (under “Non-Categorical Parole” heading, select “What
does ‘Non-Categorical Parole’ mean?”) (“Aliens who are outside of the United States may
request to be paroled into the United States based on urgent humanitarian reasons or a significant
public benefit. These aliens are not paroled into the United States under a categorical parole
program or process. Often, the Class of Admission (COA) for these aliens is ‘DT’ though other
parole related COAs may have been used.”).
Case 1:25-cv-01667-HYJ-MV ECF No. 9, PageID.<pageID> Filed 01/06/26 Page 3
of 6

4
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.
V. 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).
Respondents, however, contend that Petitioner 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
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,
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).
Case 1:25-cv-01667-HYJ-MV ECF No. 9, PageID.<pageID> Filed 01/06/26 Page 4
of 6

5
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, is scheduled to attend hearings with an
immigration judge, has the right to appeal the denial of any request for bond, and has been detained
by ICE for only a short period time.
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.
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. 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.
Case 1:25-cv-01667-HYJ-MV ECF No. 9, PageID.<pageID> Filed 01/06/26 Page 5
of 6

6
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 ICE Detroit Field Office Director and the Secretary
for the Department of Homeland Security as Respondents.
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 or, in the alternative,
immediately release Petitioner from custody.3 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: January 6, 2026 /s/ Hala Y. Jarbou
HALA Y. JARBOU
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3 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.
Case 1:25-cv-01667-HYJ-MV ECF No. 9, PageID.<pageID> Filed 01/06/26 Page 6
of 6