Montaguth Perez v. Noem et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
______
OLGER HERNEY MONTAGUTH PEREZ,
Petitioner,
v.
KRISTI NOEM et al.,
Respondents.
____________________________/
Case No. 1:26-cv-920
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.) 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 or provide Petitioner with a bond hearing that comports with due process before
a different Immigration Judge. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.11.) 1 In an order entered on March 27,
1 When Petitioner filed his petition for habeas corpus, he also filed a motion for a temporary
restraining order and expedited consideration. (ECF No. 2.) As set forth in this opinion, the
Court will conditionally grant Petitioner’s § 2241 petition and order Respondents to provide a
Case 1:26-cv-00920-JMB-PJG ECF No. 11, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/20/26 Page 1
of 4

2
2026, the Court directed Respondents to show cause, within three business days, why the writ of
habeas corpus should not be granted. (Order, ECF No. 5.) Respondents filed their corrected
response on April 8, 2026 (Resp, ECF No. 10), and a recording of the February 12, 2026 bond
hearing on April 1, 2026, (Recording of Bond Hrg., ECF No. 6).
II. 	Factual Background
Petitioner is a citizen of Venezuela who entered the United States on April 4, 2022. (Pet.,
ECF No. 1, PageID.2.) On January 5, 2026, Petitioner was arrested by ICE in Grand Rapids. (2026
Form I-213, ECF No. 6-1, PageID.227.)
On December 29, 2025, Petitioner filed a § 2241 petition challenging his initial detention
without a bond hearing in Montaguth Perez v. Noem (Montaguth Perez I), No. 1:26-cv-171 (W.D.
Mich.). In Montaguth Perez 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 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.,
Montaguth Perez I, (W.D. Mich. Feb. 6, 2026), (ECF Nos. 7, 8).
On February 12, 2026, Petitioner received a bond hearing pursuant to § 1226(a). (Pet., ECF
No. 1, PageID.4.) At that hearing, Petitioner was represented by counsel and requested he be
released on bond because he argued he is not a danger to the community or a flight risk. (Recording
of Bond Hrg., ECF No. 6.) During the hearing, the Immigration Judge (IJ) made it clear to
Petitioner’s counsel that the burden of proof was on Petitioner. (Id.) At the conclusion of the
February 12, 2026 hearing, the immigration judge denied Petitioner’s request for bond because,
“Given the concerns regarding an indicia of fraud based upon documentary evidence and
bond hearing or release Petitioner. Under these circumstances, Petitioner’s motion for a
temporary restraining order and expediated consideration is moot.
Case 1:26-cv-00920-JMB-PJG ECF No. 11, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/20/26 Page 2
of 4

3
[Petitioner]’s transient lifestyle the [Court] finds that [Petitioner] has not met his burden.” (Order
of the IJ, ECF No. 1-3, PageID.19.)
III. 	Analysis
Respondents argue that the Court should deny Petitioner’s § 2241 petition due to a lack of
jurisdiction and Petitioner’s failure to exhaust Petitioner’s administrative remedies, as well as on
the merits. The Court has fully addressed these issues and Respondents’ arguments in Soto-Medina
v. Lynch, No. 1:25-cv-1704, --- F. Supp. 3d ----, 2026 WL 161002, at *2 (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.
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 and other requested relief in Petitioner’s § 2241 petition.
Conclusion
The Court will order Respondents to provide Petitioner with an individualized bond
hearing before a neutral 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
Case 1:26-cv-00920-JMB-PJG ECF No. 11, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/20/26 Page 3
of 4

4
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
April 20, 2026 	/s/ Jane M. Beckering
Case 1:26-cv-00920-JMB-PJG ECF No. 11, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/20/26 Page 4
of 4