Contreras Pernia v. Noem et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
______
JEAN CARLOS CONTRERAS PERNIA,
Petitioner,
v.
KRISTI NOEM et al.,
Respondents.
____________________________/
Case No. 1:26-cv-757
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 combined counseled petition for a 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, 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. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.18.) In an order entered on March 11, 2026, the Court
directed Respondents to show cause, within three business days, why the writ of habeas corpus
Case 1:26-cv-00757-JMB-SJB ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/07/26 Page 1
of 4

2
should not be granted. (Order, ECF No. 3.) Respondents filed their response on March 16, 2026,
(ECF No. 4), and Petitioner filed his reply later the same day (ECF No. 5).
II. 	Factual Background
Petitioner is a native and citizen of Venezuela. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.1; Notice to
Appear (NTA), ECF No. 4-1, PageID.76.) On or about May 2, 2023, Petitioner entered the United
States near El Paso, Texas, without inspection. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.4; NTA, ECF No. 4-1,
PageID.76.) Petitioner encountered Department of Homeland Security (DHS) agents and was
issued a Form I-862, NTA, charging Petitioner with inadmissibility under § 212(a)(6)(A)(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.” (NTA, ECF No. 4-1, PageID.76.) On May 9,
2023, Petitioner was released into the United States on his own recognizance “[p]ursuant to the
authority contained in section 236 of the [INA]” which is codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1226. (Notice of
Custody Determination, ECF No. 4-2, PageID.81.)
In July of 2025, ICE encountered and arrested Petitioner near the Windsor Tunnel in
Detroit, Michigan. (See Form I-200, ECF No. 4-3, PageID.84; Resp., ECF No. 4, PageID.68.)
Petitioner was detained by ICE until October 3, 2025, when ICE issued Petitioner a letter, granting
him “parole until April 2, 2026.” (Notification Granting Parole, ECF No. 1-2.) On October 15,
2025, Petitioner was arrested and detained at an ICE check-in appointment. (Pet., ECF No. 1,
PageID.4; Resp., ECF No. 4, PageID.68.)
On January 9, 2026, Petitioner filed a § 2241 petition challenging his initial detention
without a bond hearing in Contreras Pernia v. Noem et al. (Contreras Pernia I), No. 1:26-cv-89
(W.D. Mich.). In Contreras Pernia I, the Court conditionally granted Petitioner’s petition for a
writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, ordering Respondents to provide Petitioner
Case 1:26-cv-00757-JMB-SJB ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/07/26 Page 2
of 4

3
with a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within five business days of the date of the Court’s
Opinion and Judgment or, in the alternative, immediately release Petitioner from custody. Op. &
Jud., Contreras Pernia I, (W.D. Mich. Feb. 2, 2026), (ECF Nos. 6, 7).
On February 9, 2026, the Detroit Immigration Court held a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1226, and the Immigration Judge (IJ) denied Petitioner’s bond request because Petitioner
did not establish he is not a danger or a flight risk. [Petitioner] served in the
Venezuelan military during a period of time when it committed significant human
rights abuses against the citizens of Venezuela. [Petitioner] did not present
evidence to show he has not engaged in such abuses. Nor has [Petitioner] presented
evidence he is not subject to bars to relief from removal, which makes an already
speculative application even more tenuous.
Order of the IJ, Contreras Pernia I, (W.D. Mich. Feb. 2, 2026), (ECF No. 8-1, PageID.113).
III. 	Analysis
In this case, Petitioner received a § 1226(a) bond hearing on February 9, 2026, before the
Detroit Immigration Court. At the bond hearing, the Immigration Judge denied bond because
“[Petitioner] did not establish he is not a danger or a flight risk.” Order of the IJ, Contreras Pernia
I, (W.D. Mich. Feb. 2, 2026), (ECF No. 8-1, PageID.113). In light of the burden of proof applied
at the February 9, 2026, bond hearing, for the reasons set forth in Soto-Medina v. Lynch, No. 1:25-
cv-1704, --- F. Supp. 3d ----, 2026 WL 161002, at *2 (W.D. Mich. Jan. 21, 2026), 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 in Petitioner’s § 2241 petition.1
1 The Court notes that Petitioner argues he should be released pursuant to any conditions that
existed under his § 1182(d)(5)(A) parole because Respondents failed to follow the statutory
process to properly terminate Petitioner’s parole. The October 3, 2025, letter that granted Petitioner
parole after he was released from ICE detention does not indicate the statutory basis for the parole.
(See Notification Granting Parole, ECF No. 1-2.) Based on the record before this Court, there is
Case 1:26-cv-00757-JMB-SJB ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/07/26 Page 3
of 4

4
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
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: 	April 7, 2026 	/s/ Jane M. Beckering
Jane M. Beckering
United States District Judge
nothing in the record to confirm that Petitioner was paroled pursuant to § 1182(d)(5)(A). Under
these circumstances, at this time, the Court will not grant relief on that basis.
Case 1:26-cv-00757-JMB-SJB ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/07/26 Page 4
of 4