Yu v. Noem et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
______
MINGYUAN YU,
Petitioner,
v.
KRISTI NOEM et al.,
Respondents.
____________________________/
Case No. 1:26-cv-292
Honorable 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 by filing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (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, 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.19.) In an order entered on January 30, 2026, the Court directed Respondents to show
cause, within three business days, why the writ of habeas corpus and other relief requested by
Case 1:26-cv-00292-HYJ-MV ECF No. 13, PageID.<pageID> Filed 03/04/26 Page 1
of 7

2
Petitioner should not be granted. (Order, ECF No. 4.) Respondents filed their response on February
4, 2026, (ECF No. 5), and Petitioner filed his reply on February 13, 2026, (ECF No. 10).
II. 	Factual Background
Petitioner is a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China. (Pet., ECF No. 1,
PageID.10; Notice to Appear (NTA), ECF No. 5-1, PageID.112.) Petitioner entered the United
States on an F-1 student visa during December of 2016. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.14; Resp., ECF
No. 5, PageID.76.) Petitioner applied for asylum based on religious prosecution as a Christian in
China. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.14.)
Immigration officials encountered Petitioner on May 29, 2025, and charged him as
properly admitted, but removable, because he did not attend school from 2017 to the date of his
detention and, thus, exceeded the duration of his F-1 status. (Id., NTA, ECF No. 5-1, PageID.112.)
On June 18, 2025, an Immigration Judge denied Petitioner release on bond because “Under Q. Li,
[Petitioner’s] detention i[s] under INA 235(b) and he is not eligible for bond under INA 236(a).”
(Order, ECF No. 1-3, PageID.23.) In other words, the Immigration Judge concluded that Petitioner
was an “arriving alien” under 8 U.S.C. 1225(b) and subject to mandatory detention based on the
decision in Matter of Q. Li, 29 I&N Dec. 66 (BIA 2025).
Petitioner sought a custody determination again during July 2025 based on a change in
circumstances. By order entered July 13, 2025, an Immigration Judge denied bond because “there
is no material change in the circumstances making the Respondent eligible for a change in bond.”
(Order, ECF No. 1-5, PageID.37.)
On September 30, 2025, an Immigration Judge found that Petitioner was removable, denied
asylum, denied withholding of removal under INA § 241(b)(3) and under the Convention Against
Torture, and granted Petitioner’s application for post-conclusion voluntary departure under INA
§ 240B(b). (Order, ECF No. 5-2, PageID.117–120.) Petitioner appealed the removal order. (Resp.,
Case 1:26-cv-00292-HYJ-MV ECF No. 13, PageID.<pageID> Filed 03/04/26 Page 2
of 7

3
ECF No. 5, PageID.77.) That appeal is pending. (Id.) Petitioner remains detained at the North Lake
Processing Center.
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-
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-00292-HYJ-MV ECF No. 13, PageID.<pageID> Filed 03/04/26 Page 3
of 7

4
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.
Respondents’ argument is particularly baffling in that Respondents have argued countless times
that § 1226(a) is properly applied to noncitizens who are admitted on a visa but then overstay that
visa.
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
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
1 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. At this time, this non-
binding case does not change the Court’s analysis. Additionally, even in Buenrostro-Mendez, the
court concluded that “1226(a) applies to admitted aliens who overstay their visas.” Id., at 505.
Case 1:26-cv-00292-HYJ-MV ECF No. 13, PageID.<pageID> Filed 03/04/26 Page 4
of 7

5
of the removal charges, has access to counsel, may request hearings with an immigration judge,
may request bond, and 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 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.
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).
Case 1:26-cv-00292-HYJ-MV ECF No. 13, PageID.<pageID> Filed 03/04/26 Page 5
of 7

6
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. The Court will dismiss the Attorney
General of the United States and the acting Director of United States Immigration and Customs
Enforcement 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 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.2 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. Further, the Court will
2 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-00292-HYJ-MV ECF No. 13, PageID.<pageID> Filed 03/04/26 Page 6
of 7

7
dismiss the Attorney General of the United States and the acting Director of United States
Immigration and Customs Enforcement as Respondents.
Dated: March 4, 2026 	/s/ Hala Y. Jarbou
HALA Y. JARBOU
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 1:26-cv-00292-HYJ-MV ECF No. 13, PageID.<pageID> Filed 03/04/26 Page 7
of 7