Sonza Sanchez v. The GEO Group, Inc. et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
______
ELVER SONZA SANCHEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
THE GEO GROUP, INC. et al.,
Respondents.
____________________________/
Case No. 1:26-cv-1775
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 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, he 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 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 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.17.) In an order entered on June 9, 2026, the Court directed
Respondents to show cause, within three business days, why the writ of habeas corpus should not
Case 1:26-cv-01775-JMB-MV ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 06/17/26 Page 1
of 4

2
be granted. (Order, ECF No. 3.) Respondents filed their response and a recording of the September
30, 2025, bond hearing on June 12, 2026, (Resp., ECF No. 4; Recording of Sept. 12, 2026, Bond
Hearing, filed on Jun. 12, 2026.)
II. 	Factual Background
Petitioner is a citizen of Columbia who entered the United States in 2024. (Oct. 30, 2025,
Immigration Judge Order, ECF No. 4-1, PageID.49.) On July 20, 2025, Petitioner was arrested by
ICE agents. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.5.)
On September 26, 2025, the Cleveland Immigration Court ordered Petitioner removed from
the United States. (Oct. 30, 2025, Immigration Judge Order, ECF No. 4-1, PageID.50.) Petitioner
appealed that decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.5.)
Because Petitioner’s appeal to the BIA remains pending, Petitioner’s order of removal is not
“administratively 	final” 	for 	purposes 	of 	the 	INA.1 	See 	8 	U.S.C. 	§§ 1101(a)(47)(B),
1231(a)(1)(B)(i), 1231(a)(2)(A).
1 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-01775-JMB-MV ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 06/17/26 Page 2
of 4

3
On September 30, 2025, the immigration court held a bond hearing at Petitioner’s request.
(Oct. 30, 2025, Immigration Judge Order, ECF No. 4-1, PageID.50; Recording of Sept. 30, 2026,
Bond Hearing, filed on Jun. 12, 2026.) At the conclusion of that hearing, the immigration judge
denied Petitioner’s request for bond, stating:
The Court does not [have] authority to redetermine bond in their case as this Court
recently issued a removal order after a denial of [Petitioner’s] I-589 application. In
the alternative, the Court would find that [Petitioner] is a flight risk due to his lack
of available relief.
(Oct. 2, 2025, Immigration Judge Order, ECF No. 4-4, PageID.58.) On October 30, 2025, the
immigration court held a second custody hearing and denied Petitioner’s request for bond, finding
“that [Petitioner] failed to demonstrate that he is not a flight risk.” (Oct. 30, 2025, Immigration
Judge Order, ECF No. 4-1, PageID.50.)
III. 	Analysis
Respondents argue that the Court should deny Petitioner’s § 2241 petition due to a lack of
jurisdiction and Petitioner’s failure to exhaust Petitioner’s administrative remedies, as well as on
the merits. The Court has fully addressed these issues and Respondents’ arguments in Soto-Medina
v. Lynch, 817 F. Supp. 3d 612 (W.D. Mich. 2026). Therefore, for the reasons set forth in Soto-
Medina, the Court will conditionally grant Petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
IV. 	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.
Conclusion
The Court will order Respondents to provide Petitioner with an individualized bond
hearing before an immigration judge, at which time the government will have the burden to
Case 1:26-cv-01775-JMB-MV ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 06/17/26 Page 3
of 4

4
demonstrate dangerousness or flight risk by clear and convincing evidence, within five business
days and 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. 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: 	June 17, 2026 	/s/ Jane M. Beckering
Jane M. Beckering
United States District Judge
Case 1:26-cv-01775-JMB-MV ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 06/17/26 Page 4
of 4