Hernandez Cuenca v. Unknown Party et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
______
ARMANDO HERNANDEZ CUENCA,
Petitioner,
v.
UNKNOWN PARTY et al.,
Respondents.
____________________________/
Case No. 1:26-cv-1252
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 counseled petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
(Pet., ECF No. 1.) For the following reasons, the Court will deny Petitioner’s petition for a writ of
habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 without prejudice.
I. 	Procedural History
In Petitioner’s § 2241 petition, Petitioner challenges the constitutionality of his current
detention following an order issued by the Detroit Immigration Court denying him bond, and asks
the Court to, inter alia, issue a writ of habeas corpus ordering Respondents to release Petitioner or
provide Petitioner with a bond hearing where the government bears the burden of proof by clear
and convincing evidence that Petitioner is a flight risk or danger to the community. (Pet., ECF
No. 1, PageID.3.)
In an order entered on April 21, 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
Case 1:26-cv-01252-JMB-SJB ECF No. 12, PageID.<pageID> Filed 05/01/26 Page 1
of 4

2
not be granted. (Order, ECF No. 8.) Respondents filed their response and a recording of the March
30, 2026, bond hearing on April 22, 2026. (Resp., ECF No. 6; Recording of Mar. 30, 2026, Bond
Hearing, filed on Apr. 22, 2026.)
II. 	Relevant Factual Background
Petitioner is a citizen of Mexico who entered the United States in 2004. Op., Hernandez
Cuenca v. Raycraft (Hernandez Cuenca I), No. 1:26-cv-713 (W.D. Mich Mar. 26, 2026). On
October 8, 2025, Petitioner was arrested by ICE in Chicago. Id.
On March 4, 2026, Petitioner filed a § 2241 petition challenging his initial detention
without a bond hearing in Hernandez Cuenca I. In Hernandez Cuenca I, the Court conditionally
granted Petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, ordering
Respondents to provide Petitioner with a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within five
business days of the date of the Court’s Opinion and Judgment or, in the alternative, immediately
release Petitioner from custody. Op. & Jud., Hernandez Cuenca I, (W.D. Mich. Mar. 26, 2026),
(ECF Nos. 9, 10).
On March 30, 2026, Petitioner received a bond hearing pursuant to § 1226(a). (Immigration
Judge Order, ECF No. 9-2, PageID.55) At the conclusion of that hearing, in a written order, the
Immigration Judge denied Petitioner’s request for bond, stating: “[Petitioner] is a flight risk.
[Petitioner] has a removal order and all applications for relief were previously denied.” (Id.)
III. 	Discussion
In this case, Petitioner had a bond hearing pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226 in the Detroit
Immigration Court on March 30, 2026. The Detroit Immigration Court denied Petitioner’s request
for a bond, concluding that “[Petitioner] is a flight risk. [Petitioner] has a removal order and all
applications for relief were previously denied.” (Id.) In his § 2241 petition, Petitioner challenges
the findings of the Detroit Immigration Court as related to the denial of his bond, arguing that
Case 1:26-cv-01252-JMB-SJB ECF No. 12, PageID.<pageID> Filed 05/01/26 Page 2
of 4

3
“[t]he Immigration Judge failed to properly consider critical evidence demonstrating Petitioner is
not a flight risk.” (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.2.) Respondents argue, inter alia, that the Court should
dismiss Petitioner’s petition because Petitioner has not exhausted his administrative remedies.
(Resp., ECF No. 9, PageID.47–50.)
Noncitizens “who are held in custody under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), while their petitions for
review of their removal orders are pending, are entitled to a bond hearing before an immigration
judge.” Leonardo v. Crawford, 646 F.3d 1157, 1160 (9th Cir. 2011) (citation omitted); see, e.g.,
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). If the noncitizen is “dissatisfied with the
[immigration judge’s] bond determination,” the noncitizen ordinarily must “file an administrative
appeal so that ‘the necessity of detention can be reviewed by . . . the BIA.’” Leonardo, 646 F.3d
at 1160 (citation omitted). There are exceptions to this general rule. For example, the United States
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has noted that due process challenges that are not premised
on “correctable procedural errors” generally do not require exhaustion because the BIA cannot
review constitutional challenges. See Sterkaj v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 273, 279 (6th Cir. 2006)
(discussing that “an alien’s due process challenge generally does not require exhaustion” because
“the BIA lacks authority to review constitutional challenges,” but noting that an “alien must raise
correctable procedural errors to the BIA”). “When a petitioner does not exhaust administrative
remedies, a district court ordinarily should either dismiss the petition without prejudice or stay the
Case 1:26-cv-01252-JMB-SJB ECF No. 12, PageID.<pageID> Filed 05/01/26 Page 3
of 4

4
proceedings until the petitioner has exhausted remedies, unless exhaustion is excused.” Leonardo,
646 F.3d at 1160.
In this case, although Petitioner argues that his detention generally violates the Due Process
Clause of the Fifth Amendment, Petitioner’s specific claims involve challenges to the immigration
judge’s factual determinations in the bond decision. Petitioner does not argue that the procedures
of the bond hearing itself violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Under these
circumstances, the issues raised in the present § 2241 petition are issues that must first be raised
to the BIA. Therefore, Petitioner has not exhausted his administrative remedies, and Petitioner has
not demonstrated grounds for excusing the exhaustion requirement in this case.
Conclusion
For the reasons discussed above, the Court will enter a judgment denying Petitioner’s
petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 without prejudice.
Dated:
Jane M. Beckering
United States District Judge
May 1, 2026 	/s/ Jane M. Beckering
Case 1:26-cv-01252-JMB-SJB ECF No. 12, PageID.<pageID> Filed 05/01/26 Page 4
of 4