Herrera Donaldson v. Noem et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
______
YURYMAY HERRERA DONALDSON,
Petitioner,
v.
KRISTI NOEM et al.,
Respondents.
____________________________/
Case No. 1:25-cv-1670
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 combined petition for 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
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, declare that Respondents’
actions to detain Petitioner violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and the
Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), and issue a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241 ordering Respondents to release Petitioner or to conduct a bond hearing for Petitioner’s
removal proceedings. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.15.) In the petition, Petitioner also sought a
Case 1:25-cv-01670-JMB-SJB ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 01/12/26 Page 1
of 6

2
temporary restraining order compelling Respondents to release him or to conduct a bond hearing
to ensure his due process rights. (Id., PageID.2.) Alternatively, Petitioner asked the Court to order
Respondents to show cause, within three days, why the petition should not be granted. (Id.)
In an Order entered on December 9, 2025, 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. 3.) Respondents filed their response on December 12,
2025, (ECF No. 4), and Petitioner filed his reply on December 17, 2025, (ECF No. 5).
II. 	Factual Background
Petitioner is a native and citizen of Cuba. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.4; Notice to Appear
(NTA), ECF No. 4-1, PageID.63.) Petitioner first entered the United States in 2015 at Laredo,
Texas, and at that time, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) paroled Petitioner into the
United States “for a period of two years under the Cuban Adjustment Act.” (Form I-213, ECF
No. 4-2, PageID.70; Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.1, 4.) On July 12, 2021, Petitioner was “re-paroled
for another two years, valid until July 11[,] 2023.” (Form I-213, ECF No. 4-2, PageID.70.)
“Petitioner is engaged to a U.S. Citizen and has [a] U.S. Citizen sister and disabled mother.” (Pet.,
ECF No. 1, PageID.2.)
On November 19, 2025, ICE arrested Petitioner. (Id.; Form I-213, ECF No. 4-2,
PageID.70.) At that time, ICE issued Petitioner a Form I-862, NTA, charging Petitioner with
inadmissibility under § 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) of the INA because Petitioner is “an immigrant who,
at the time of application for admission, is not in possession of a valid unexpired [immigration or
travel document].” (NTA, ECF No. 4-1, PageID.63, 66.) 1
1 Respondents indicate that Petitioner was convicted of assault with a dangerous weapon on May
9, 2018, in the 30th Circuit Court in Mason, Michigan, and that he was sentenced to ninety days
confinement. (Form I-213, ECF No. 4-2, PageID.70.) Respondents do not contend that § 1226(c)
Case 1:25-cv-01670-JMB-SJB ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 01/12/26 Page 2
of 6

3
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 (BIA).
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).
governs Petitioner’s detention. (See Resp., ECF No. 4, PageID.58); 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c); see also
8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A).
Case 1:25-cv-01670-JMB-SJB ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 01/12/26 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, is scheduled to attend hearings with an
2 Additionally, for the same reasons set forth in Hernandez Montiel v. Raycraft, No. 1:25-cv-1610,
2026 WL 32076 (W.D. Mich. Jan. 6, 2026), the Court disagrees with Respondents’ argument that
Petitioner’s detention is governed by § 1225 because the NTA charged him as an “arriving alien”
(see Resp., ECF No. 4, PageID.53), and the Court concludes that § 1226(a) governs Petitioner’s
detention.
Case 1:25-cv-01670-JMB-SJB ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 01/12/26 Page 4
of 6

5
immigration judge, has the right to appeal the denial of any request for bond, and has been detained
by ICE for a short period 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 United States Secretary of Homeland Security as
a Respondent. 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 1:25-cv-01670-JMB-SJB ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 01/12/26 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 and the United
States Secretary of Homeland Security 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 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:
Jane M. Beckering
United States District Judge
January 12, 2026 	/s/ Jane M. Beckering
Case 1:25-cv-01670-JMB-SJB ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 01/12/26 Page 6
of 6