Morales Morales v. Unknown Party et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
______
DENIS OMAR MORALES MORALES,
Petitioner,
v.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY and IMMIGRATION AND
CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT,
Respondents.
____________________________/
Case No. 1:26-cv-714
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 by filing a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
(Pet., ECF No. 1.)1I 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 and brief, 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 either ordering Respondents to release Petitioner or ordering Respondents to conduct a
1 In the Court’s March 9, 2026, order to show cause, the Court granted Petitioner leave to proceed
in forma pauperis.
Case 1:26-cv-00714-HYJ-PJG ECF No. 16, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/10/26 Page 1
of 7

2
bond hearing to satisfy the requirements of due process. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.4; Br., ECF
No. 2, PageID.12.)2
In an order entered on March 9, 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. 8.) Respondents filed their response on March 12, 2026, (ECF
No. 9), and Petitioner filed a reply and supplemental memorandum on March 25, 2026, (Reply,
ECF No. 11; Supp. Mem., ECF No. 12).
II. 	Factual Background
Petitioner is a native and citizen of Mexico. (Notice to Appear (NTA), ECF No. 9-1,
PageID.54.) Petitioner entered the United States on or about February 5, 2020, at or near El Paso,
Texas, without inspection. (Id.) After Petitioner entered the United States, Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) agents encountered and arrested Petitioner. (2025 Form I-213, ECF
No. 9-5, PageID.72.) DHS initially placed Petitioner in expedited removal proceedings. (Id.;
Notice and Order of Expedited Removal, ECF No. 9-3, PageID.63.) Thereafter, DHS found that
Petitioner had demonstrated a credible fear of persecution or torture, and DHS then issued
Petitioner a Form I-862, NTA, charging Petitioner with inadmissibility under § 212(a)(6)(A)(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,” which placed Petitioner in standard,
non-expedited removal proceedings under § 240 of the INA. (NTA, ECF No. 9-1, PageID.54.)
2 In addition to filing the § 2241 petition, Petitioner also filed several motions in this action, seeking
expedited review of the case, a stay of removal during the pendency of this action, and immediate
relief. (ECF Nos. 4, 5, 13, 14, 15.) As set forth in this opinion, the Court will conditionally grant
Petitioner’s § 2241 petition, which resolves the case. In light of this, the entry of the Court’s
opinion and corresponding judgment moots Petitioner’s pending motions.
Case 1:26-cv-00714-HYJ-PJG ECF No. 16, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/10/26 Page 2
of 7

3
Petitioner was then paroled into the United States under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5)(A), for a period of
one year. (Interim Notice Authorizing Parole, ECF No. 9-4, PageID.66.)
On December 7, 2025, local police officers arrested Petitioner for assault. (2025
Form I-213, ECF No. 9-5, PageID.72.) On December 9, 2025, ICE agents went to the Ottawa
County Jail in West Olive, Michigan, and arrested Petitioner. (Id.)
On January 21, 2026, the Detroit Immigration Court ordered that Petitioner be removed to
Mexico. (Order of the Immigration Judge, ECF No. 9-6, PageID.77.) On February 19, 2026,
Petitioner appealed that order to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). (Appeal Receipt, ECF
No. 9-7, PageID.80.) That appeal is pending. (Resp., ECF No. 9, PageID.45; Pet., ECF No. 1,
PageID.2.) Because Petitioner’s appeal to the BIA remains pending, Petitioner’s order of removal
is not “administratively final” for purposes of the INA.3 See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(47)(B),
1231(a)(1)(B)(i), 1231(a)(2)(A).
3 Section 1231 of Title 8, titled, “Detention and removal of aliens ordered removed,” provides in
relevant part that, “[d]uring the removal period, the Attorney General shall detain the alien.”
8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(2)(A). However, as relevant to this case, the removal period does not begin to
run until “[t]he date the order of removal becomes administratively final.” Id. § 1231(a)(1)(B)(i).
For the purposes of § 1231(a)(1)(B)(i), a removal order “shall become final upon the earlier of (i) a
determination by the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming such an order; or (ii) the expiration
of the period in which the alien is permitted to seek review of such order by the Board of
Immigration Appeals.” Id. § 1101(a)(47)(B); see Jusufi v. Chertoff, No. 07-15450, 2007 WL
4591760, at *4 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 28, 2007) (discussing that a final removal order becomes
administratively final when the BIA denies an appeal of it); see also Johnson v. Guzman Chavez,
594 U.S. 523, 534–35 (2021) (“[O]nce the BIA has reviewed [and affirmed] the [removal] order
(or the time for seeking the BIA’s review has expired), DHS is free to remove the alien unless a
court issues a stay. That reinforces why Congress included ‘administratively’ before the word
‘final’ in the first provision.”). Because Petitioner’s appeal to the BIA remains pending, § 1231
does not apply, and § 1226(a) governs Petitioner’s detention. See Johnson, 594 U.S. at 533 (“The
parties agree that § 1226 governs the detention of aliens until § 1231’s ‘removal period’ begins.”).
Case 1:26-cv-00714-HYJ-PJG ECF No. 16, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/10/26 Page 3
of 7

4
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. 	Merits Discussion
A. 	Statutory Basis for Petitioner’s Detention
Respondents contend that Petitioner is subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1225(b)(1)(B)(ii) because Petitioner is in expedited removal proceedings. But this argument is
belied by Respondents’ acknowledgment that after being initially processed for expedited removal,
Petitioner was later “placed in removal proceedings under INA § 240” (i.e., standard, non-
expedited removal proceedings), and that those “removal proceedings are still pending[.]” (Resp.,
ECF No. 9, PageID.47–48.)
The Court concludes that § 1226(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:
cf. 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.
Case 1:26-cv-00714-HYJ-PJG ECF No. 16, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/10/26 Page 4
of 7

5
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 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, may 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).
V. 	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,
No. 25-3248, --- F.4th ----, 2026 WL 819258 (8th Cir. Mar. 25, 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-00714-HYJ-PJG ECF No. 16, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/10/26 Page 5
of 7

6
VI. 	Proper Respondents
Respondents argue that Petitioner has failed to name a proper Respondent in this action
because Petitioner did not name the Detroit ICE Field Office Director as a Respondent.5 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: 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).
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 Department of Homeland Security and the 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,
5 The Court previously dismissed the Warden of North Lake Processing Center as a Respondent.
(Order, ECF No. 8.)
Case 1:26-cv-00714-HYJ-PJG ECF No. 16, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/10/26 Page 6
of 7

7
immediately release Petitioner from custody.6 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: April 10, 2026
HALA Y. JARBOU
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
6 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.
/s/ Hala Y. Jarbou
Case 1:26-cv-00714-HYJ-PJG ECF No. 16, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/10/26 Page 7
of 7