Hernandez Cuenca v. Unknown Party et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
______
ARMANDO HERNANDEZ CUENCA,
Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
HOMELAND SECURITY et al.,
Respondents.
____________________________/
Case No. 1:26-cv-713
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 pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
(Pet., ECF No. 1.) The Court grants Petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF
No. 2.) Moreover, 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.1 (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.4; see Pet’r’s Br., ECF No. 5.)
1 When Petitioner initiated this action, he filed a motion for a hearing or release (ECF No. 3) and
a motion to stay removal proceedings during the pendency of this action (ECF No. 4). As set forth
Case 1:26-cv-00713-JMB-SJB ECF No. 9, PageID.<pageID> Filed 03/26/26 Page 1
of 7

2
In an Order entered on March 6, 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 not be granted. (Order, ECF No. 7.) Respondents filed their response on March 10, 2026.
(ECF No. 8.)
II. 	Factual Background
Petitioner is a native and citizen of Mexico. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.2; Notice to Appear
(NTA), ECF No. 5-5, PageID.34.) Petitioner entered the United States in 2004 without inspection.
(NTA, ECF No. 5-5, PageID.45; Feb. 25, 2026, Order of the Immigration Judge (IJ), ECF No. 8-4,
PageID.85–86) On October 8, 2025, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) agents encountered
Petitioner on his way to work in Detroit. (2025 Form I-213, ECF No. 8-2, PageID.78; Pet., ECF
No. 1, PageID.2.) DHS issued 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 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,”
and “who, at the time of application for admission, is not in possession of a valid unexpired
[immigration or travel document.]” (NTA, ECF No. 8-1, PageID.74.) Petitioner filed an asylum
application. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.2.)
At some point prior to February 9, 2026, Petitioner requested a bond hearing before an IJ,
but he subsequently withdrew the request on February 9, 2026, before the IJ could make a
determination. (Feb. 9, 2026, Order of the IJ, ECF No. 8-3, PageID.82.) On February 25, 2026,
in this opinion, the Court will conditionally grant Petitioner’s § 2241 petition, ordering
Respondents to provide Petitioner with a bond hearing or release Petitioner. Under these
circumstances, Petitioner’s request for a hearing or release and his request for the Court to take
certain actions during the pendency of the case are moot.
Case 1:26-cv-00713-JMB-SJB ECF No. 9, PageID.<pageID> Filed 03/26/26 Page 2
of 7

3
the Detroit Immigration Court denied Petitioner’s asylum application, denied withholding of
removal, and ordered Petitioner removed to Mexico. (Order of the IJ, ECF No. 8-4, PageID.85–
88.) Petitioner has until March 27, 2026, to appeal the order of removal. (See id., PageID.89.)
Because 	Petitioner 	is 	within 	his 	appeal 	period, 	Petitioner’s 	order 	of 	removal 	is 	not
“administratively 	final” 	for 	purposes 	of 	the 	INA.2 	See 	8 	U.S.C. 	§§ 1101(a)(47)(B),
1231(a)(1)(B)(i), 1231(a)(2)(A).
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).
2 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.”). Here, Petitioner’s appeal period runs to March 27, 2026. Therefore,
§ 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-00713-JMB-SJB ECF No. 9, PageID.<pageID> Filed 03/26/26 Page 3
of 7

4
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.
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.
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.
Case 1:26-cv-00713-JMB-SJB ECF No. 9, PageID.<pageID> Filed 03/26/26 Page 4
of 7

5
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).3
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, may 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 of 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.
3 The Court is aware of Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, 166 F.4th 494 (5th Cir. 2026), which was
recently issued by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. At this time, this non-
binding case does not change the Court’s analysis.
Case 1:26-cv-00713-JMB-SJB ECF No. 9, PageID.<pageID> Filed 03/26/26 Page 5
of 7

6
VII. 	Proper Respondents
Respondents argue that Petitioner has failed to name a proper Respondent in this action because
Petitioner did not name the Detroit ICE Field Office Director 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 in each of the following cases: cf. 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 United States Department of Homeland Security and ICE 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 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.4 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
4 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 or only release.
Case 1:26-cv-00713-JMB-SJB ECF No. 9, PageID.<pageID> Filed 03/26/26 Page 6
of 7

7
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: 	March 26, 2026 	/s/ Jane M. Beckering
Jane M. Beckering
United States District Judge
Case 1:26-cv-00713-JMB-SJB ECF No. 9, PageID.<pageID> Filed 03/26/26 Page 7
of 7