Jose Valencia v. Noem et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
______
LUIS JOSE VALENCIA,
Petitioner,
v.
KRISTI NOEM et al.,
Respondents.
____________________________/
Case No. 1:25-cv-1828
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 a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241 (ECF No. 1), and a motion for emergency injunctive relief. (ECF No. 2.) 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, 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 bond hearing to
satisfy the requirements of due process. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.13.) Petitioner also sought
release on bond in his motion for emergency injunctive relief. (ECF No. 2, PageID.125.)
Case 1:25-cv-01828-JMB-RSK ECF No. 11, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/05/26 Page 1
of 7

2
In an Order entered on December 20, 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. 4.) Respondents filed their response on December 22,
2025, (ECF No. 5), and Petitioner filed his reply on December 29, 2025, (ECF No. 6).
II. 	Factual Background
Petitioner is a native and citizen of Venezuela. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.4, 5; Notice to
Appear (NTA), ECF No. 5-1, PageID.164.) Petitioner entered the United States in 2021 at or near
Eagle Pass, Texas without inspection. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.6; NTA, ECF No. 4-1,
PageID.164.) On February 22, 2022, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) 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 was 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.” (Pet., ECF
No. 1, PageID.6; NTA, ECF No. 4-1, PageID.164–165.) Petitioner was released on his own
recognizance. (I-213 Narrative, ECF No. 5-2, PageID.170.)
On April 7, 2022, Petitioner filed a Form I-589, Application for Asylum and Withholding
of Removal, based on persecution he suffered in Venezuela. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.6.) An
Immigration Judge denied Petitioner’s asylum application in a final decision dated September 30,
2025. (Pet. ECF No. 1, PageID.6.) Petitioner has appealed the decision; the appeal remains
pending. (Id.)
On November 10, 2025, Petitioner appeared for a scheduled ICE check-in in Detroit,
Michigan. (Id., PageID.7.) DHS detained Petitioner at the check-in. While in detention, Petitioner
requested a custody redetermination. A bond hearing was held on December 17, 2025. (Bond
Denial Order, ECF No. 1-2, PageID.17–18.) The Immigration Judge denied bond stating:
Case 1:25-cv-01828-JMB-RSK ECF No. 11, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/05/26 Page 2
of 7

3
The Court finds it lacks authority to hear the Respondent’s request for a bond as
the Respondent is an applicant for admission and is subject to mandatory detention
under section 235(b)(2)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A), and the regulation
at 8 C.F.R. § 235.3(b)(1)(ii). Matter of Yajure-Hurtado, 29 I&N Dec. 213, 228 (BIA
2025).
In the alternative the Court finds that the Respondent is a flight risk as he has an
order of removal denying his request for relief. There is insufficient evidence in the
record that the respondent would willfully report for removal if all his appeal is
exhausted with unfavorable results.
(Id.) The next day, Petitioner filed his habeas petition. Petitioner remains detained at the North
Lake Processing Center.
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 by appealing the unfavorable
decision 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,
Case 1:25-cv-01828-JMB-RSK ECF No. 11, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/05/26 Page 3
of 7

4
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).
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).
B. 	Fifth Amendment Due Process Considerations
Petitioner also argues that his detention violates the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process
Clause in two ways: first, because Respondents improperly considered Petitioner’s custody
redetermination request under § 1225, rather than § 1226; and second, because Respondents, in
Case 1:25-cv-01828-JMB-RSK ECF No. 11, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/05/26 Page 4
of 7

5
the alternative, applied an unconstitutional burden and standard of proof when denying bond. 1 The
Court has fully addressed these issues and Respondents’ arguments in Soto-Medina v. Lynch et al.,
No. 1:25-cv-1704 (W.D. Mich. Jan. 21, 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. Soto-Medina v. Lynch et al., No. 1:25-cv-1704 (W.D. Mich. Jan. 21, 2026).
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 all of the other named Respondents. 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:
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).
1 Petitioner focuses his attack on Respondents’ application of § 1225 standards to Petitioner’s
custody redetermination request rather than § 1226. Nonetheless, Petitioner also contends that the
Immigration Judge’s “perfunctory alternative ruling applies an improper presumption against
release . . . .” (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.12.) Petitioner reiterated that contention in his reply:
“[e]ven if the Court considers the IJ’s alternative flight risk finding, it merits no deference because
it applied an unconstitutional burden of proof.” (Reply, ECF No. 6, PageID.174.)
Case 1:25-cv-01828-JMB-RSK ECF No. 11, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/05/26 Page 5
of 7

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 ICE Detroit Field Office Director and the Secretary
for the Department of Homeland Security as Respondents. The Court will dismiss the United States
Attorney General, the United States Department of Homeland Security, United States Immigration
and Customs Enforcement, and the Executive Office for Immigration Review 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 an individualized bond hearing before an
immigration judge, at which time the government will have the burden to demonstrate
dangerousness or flight risk by clear and convincing evidence, or, in the alternative, immediately
release Petitioner from custody. 2
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
2 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.
Case 1:25-cv-01828-JMB-RSK ECF No. 11, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/05/26 Page 6
of 7

7
General, the United States Department of Homeland Security, United States Immigration and
Customs Enforcement, and the Executive Office for Immigration Review as Respondents.
Dated:
Jane M. Beckering
United States District Judge
February 5, 2026 	/s/ Jane M. Beckering
Case 1:25-cv-01828-JMB-RSK ECF No. 11, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/05/26 Page 7
of 7