Ortiz Navarro v. Unknown Party et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
______
KEVIN ESTEVEN ORTIZ NAVARRO ,
Petitioner,
v.
UNKNOWN PARTY #1 et al.,
Respondents.
____________________________/
Case No. 1:26-cv-275
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), as well as a emergency motion for immediate release or, in the alternative, an
emergency bond hearing (ECF No. 3). 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 and will dismiss
Petitioner’s emergency motion (ECF No. 3) as moot.
Discussion
I. 	Procedural History
In Petitioner’s § 2241 petition, Petitioner challenges the lawfulness of his current detention
and asks the Court to, inter alia, assume jurisdiction over this matter and issue a writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 either ordering Respondents to release Petitioner or ordering
Respondents to conduct a bond hearing to satisfy the requirements of due process. (Pet., ECF No.
1, PageID.4.)
Case 1:26-cv-00275-JMB-RSK ECF No. 10, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/19/26 Page 1
of 7

2
In an Order entered on February 5, 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. 6). Respondents filed their response on February 10, 2026
(ECF No. 7).
II. 	Factual Background
Petitioner is a native and citizen of Columbia. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.1; Notice to Appear
(NTA), ECF No. 7-1, PageID.74.) Petitioner entered the United States on or about May 19, 2023,
at an unknown location without inspection. (NTA, ECF No. 7-1, PageID.74.) Thereafter, United
States Border Patrol agents encountered and arrested Petitioner. (I-213, ECF No. 7-2, PageID.113.)
Petitioner was originally placed in expedited removal proceedings. (Notice of Expedited Removal,
ECF No.7-3, PageID.116.) However, Petitioner demonstrated a credible fear of prosecution,
(Record of Determination/Credible Fear Worksheet, ECF No. 7-1, PageID.83–110), and was
transitioned to regular removal proceedings. (Resp., ECF No. 7, PageID.38.) The Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) 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. 7-1, PageID.74.) Petitioner
was then paroled into the United States pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5) until June 15, 2024.
(Interim Notice Authorizing Parole, ECF No. 7-4, PageID.119) (stating that Petitioner was paroled
into the United States under Section 212(d)(5) of the Nationality and Immigration Act which is
codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5).)
Case 1:26-cv-00275-JMB-RSK ECF No. 10, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/19/26 Page 2
of 7

3
On November 27, 2025, ICE agents arrested Petitioner while Petitioner was leaving his
residence to go to work. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.2.) Petitioner is scheduled for a master calendar
hearing on February 25, 2026, in the Detroit Immigration Court. (Notice of Internet-Based
Hearing, ECF No. 7-5, PageID.112.)
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.
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-
Case 1:26-cv-00275-JMB-RSK ECF No. 10, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/19/26 Page 3
of 7

4
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). 1 2
1 The Court is aware of Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, No. 25-20496, --- F.4th ----, 2026 WL
323330 (5th Cir. Feb. 6, 2026), which was recently issued by the United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit. At this time, this non-binding case does not change the Court’s analysis.
2 Respondents also contend that Petitioner an “arriving alien” subject to mandatory detention. For
the reasons previously set forth in detail in Hernandez Montiel v. Raycraft, No. 1:25-cv-1610, 2026
WL 32076 (W.D. Mich. Jan. 6, 2026), Petitioner is not an “arriving alien” for purposes of
§ 1225(b.)
Case 1:26-cv-00275-JMB-RSK ECF No. 10, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/19/26 Page 4
of 7

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 a relatively short period of 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 grant Petitioner’s § 2241 petition as set forth herein, the Court will
dismiss Petitioner’s emergency motion for immediate release or, in the alternative, for an
emergency bond hearing (ECF No. 3) as moot, and 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. 3 The Court
3 The Court previously dismissed the Warden of North Lake Processing Center as a Respondent.
(Order, ECF No. 6.)
Case 1:26-cv-00275-JMB-RSK ECF No. 10, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/19/26 Page 5
of 7

6
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: cf.
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).
In light of the foregoing, the Court will direct the Clerk to substitute Kevin Raycraft, the
Director 	of 	the 	Detroit 	Field 	Office 	of 	ICE, 	for 	Respondent 	Immigration 	and 	Customs
Enforcement, and Kristi Noem, the Secretary of Homeland Security for Respondent United States
Department of Homeland Security.
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. 4 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. The Court will enter an
4 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 1:26-cv-00275-JMB-RSK ECF No. 10, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/19/26 Page 6
of 7

7
Order dismissing Petitioner’s emergency motion for immediate release or, in the alternative, for
an emergency bond hearing (ECF No. 3) as moot. Further, the Court directs the Clerk to substitute
Kevin Raycraft, the Director of the Detroit Field Office of ICE, for Respondent Immigration and
Customs Enforcement, and Kristi Noem, the Secretary of Homeland Security for Respondent
United States Department of Homeland Security.
Dated:
Jane M. Beckering
United States District Judge
February 19, 2026 	/s/ Jane M. Beckering
Case 1:26-cv-00275-JMB-RSK ECF No. 10, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/19/26 Page 7
of 7