Mendez v. Noem et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
______
YOLY JAVIER ZELAYA MENDEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
KRISTI NOEM et al.,
Respondents.
____________________________/
Case No. 1:25-cv-1841
Honorable Paul L. Maloney
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 on November 26, 2025, 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
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. 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 ordering Respondents to release Petitioner or to conduct a bond hearing within three days.
(Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.19–20.)
On December 11, 2025, the Eastern District of Michigan directed Respondents to respond
to the petition by December 17, 2025, and directed Petitioner to file any reply to Respondents’
Case 1:25-cv-01841-PLM-MV ECF No. 10, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/26/25 Page 1
of 6

2
response within three business days of the filing of the response. (ECF No. 3.) Respondents filed
their response on December 17, 2025. (ECF No. 4.) On December 18, 2025, the Eastern District
of Michigan transferred the action to this Court. (ECF No. 5.) Thereafter, on December 20, 2025,
Petitioner filed his reply. (ECF No. 9.)
II. 	Factual Background
Petitioner is a native and citizen of Honduras. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.4; Notice to Appear
(NTA), ECF No. 4-2, PageID.82.) Petitioner entered the United States in 2004 without inspection.
(Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.4; NTA, ECF No. 4-2, PageID.82.)
On August 13, 2025, while Petitioner “was attending an asylum interview at the Bethpage,
New York asylum office,” ICE detained Petitioner. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.2.) At that time, ICE
issued 	Petitioner 	a 	Form 	I-862, 	NTA, 	charging 	Petitioner 	with 	inadmissibility 	under
§ 212(a)(6)(A)(i) 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.” (NTA, ECF No. 4-2, PageID.82.)
On October 10, 2025, the Detroit Immigration Court granted Petitioner’s Application for
Cancellation of Removal, “which will allow [Petitioner] to obtain lawful permanent residence” in
the United States. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.2; see Notice of Appeal, ECF No. 4-3, PageID.88.)
The Department of Homeland Security has appealed the Detroit Immigration Court’s decision
regarding the cancellation of removal, and this appeal remains pending. (See Notice of Appeal,
ECF No. 4-3, PageID.88.)
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
Case 1:25-cv-01841-PLM-MV ECF No. 10, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/26/25 Page 2
of 6

3
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 any unfavorable
decision regarding bond 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).
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.
Case 1:25-cv-01841-PLM-MV ECF No. 10, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/26/25 Page 3
of 6

4
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. 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
immigration judge, has the right to appeal the denial of any request for bond, and has been detained
by ICE for a relatively 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).
Case 1:25-cv-01841-PLM-MV ECF No. 10, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/26/25 Page 4
of 6

5
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).
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 Acting Director of ICE 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 or, in the alternative,
Case 1:25-cv-01841-PLM-MV ECF No. 10, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/26/25 Page 5
of 6

6
immediately release Petitioner from custody.1 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: 	December 26, 2025 	/s/ Paul L. Maloney
Paul L. Maloney
United States District Judge
1 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-01841-PLM-MV ECF No. 10, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/26/25 Page 6
of 6