Roman-Morales v. Hinkley et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
______
EDUARDO ROMAN-MORALES,
Petitioner,
v.
STEVE HINKLEY et al.,
Respondents.
____________________________/
Case No. 1:26-cv-1143
Honorable Paul L. Maloney
OPINION
Petitioner, a United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detainee currently
detained at the Calhoun County Detention Facility in Battle Creek, Michigan, initiated this action
by filing a counseled petition for a 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
Petitioner initiated this action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan on April 6, 2026. In Petitioner’s § 2241 petition, Petitioner challenges the lawfulness of
his current detention and asks the Court to, inter alia, accept jurisdiction over this action and issue
a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 ordering Respondents to release Petitioner.
(Pet., ECF No. 1, Page 7–8.) On April 7, 2026, the Eastern District of Michigan transferred the
action to this Court. (ECF No. 3.)
Case 1:26-cv-01143-PLM-RSK ECF No. 10, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/22/26 Page 1
of 6

2
In an order entered on April 10, 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. 7.) Respondents filed their response on April 14, 2026, (ECF
No. 8), and Petitioner filed his reply on April 17, 2026, (ECF No. 9).
II. 	Factual Background
Petitioner is a native and citizen of Mexico. (Pet., ECF No. 1, Page 4; Notice to Appear
(NTA), ECF No. 8-1, Page 2.) Petitioner entered the United States in approximately 1990 without
inspection. (Pet., ECF No. 1, Page 4; NTA, ECF No. 8-1, Page 2.) On November 21, 2003,
Petitioner’s United States citizen wife “filed an I-130 Petition for Alien Relative, with Petitioner
as the beneficiary,” and in August 2004, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services
(USCIS) approved the I-130 petition.1 (Pet., ECF No. 1, Page 4; Receipt Notice, ECF No. 1-3.)
On December 11, 2025, ICE encountered and arrested Petitioner. (Pet., ECF No. 1, Page 4.)
At that time, ICE 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. 8-1, Page 2, 5.)
On February 4, 2026, the Detroit Immigration Court held a custody redetermination
hearing, and at the hearing, the Immigration Court found that it did not have jurisdiction to hold a
1 As set forth on the USCIS website, “[s]ubmitting [a] Form I-130, Petition for Alien Relative, is
the first step to help an eligible relative apply to immigrate to the United States and apply for a
Green Card,” and [t]he filing or approval of this petition does not give [the] relative any
immigration status or benefit.” See I-130, Petition for Alien Relative, https://www.uscis.gov/i-130
(last visited Apr. 20, 2026).
Case 1:26-cv-01143-PLM-RSK ECF No. 10, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/22/26 Page 2
of 6

3
bond hearing. (Feb. 4, 2026, Order Immigration Judge, ECF No. 9-1.) Petitioner is scheduled for
an individual hearing on April 23, 2026, in the Detroit Immigration Court. (Pet., ECF No. 1,
Page 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 appeal any unfavorable decision regarding bond 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).
Case 1:26-cv-01143-PLM-RSK ECF No. 10, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/22/26 Page 3
of 6

4
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).2
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, may attend hearings with an immigration judge,
2 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-01143-PLM-RSK ECF No. 10, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/22/26 Page 4
of 6

5
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 the other named Respondents. The Court concludes
that the Detroit ICE 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-01143-PLM-RSK ECF No. 10, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/22/26 Page 5
of 6

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 Detroit ICE Field Office Director, the United States
Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Sheriff of Calhoun County as Respondents. The Court
will dismiss the United States Attorney General as a Respondent.
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.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. Further, the Court will
dismiss the United States Attorney General as a Respondent.
Dated: 	April 22, 2026 	/s/ Paul L. Maloney
Paul L. Maloney
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 or only release.
Case 1:26-cv-01143-PLM-RSK ECF No. 10, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/22/26 Page 6
of 6