Guevara Melendez v. Unknown Party #1 et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
______
JOSE ELVIS GUEVARA MELENDEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
UNKNOWN PARTY #1 et al.,
Respondents.
____________________________/
Case No. 1:26-cv-952
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 writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
(Pet., ECF No. 1.) For the following reasons, the Court will deny Petitioner’s petition for a writ of
habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 without prejudice.
I. 	Procedural History
In Petitioner’s § 2241 petition, Petitioner 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 ordering Respondents to release Petitioner.
(Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.14.)
In an order entered on March 27, 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. 4.) Respondents filed their response on April 1, 2026.
(ECF No. 5.)
Case 1:26-cv-00952-JMB-RSK ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/08/26 Page 1
of 3

2
II. 	Relevant Factual Background
Petitioner is a citizen of El Salvador who was admitted to the United States pursuant to an
H2B visa on May 31, 2002. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.2.) On February 15, 2026, Petitioner was
arrested by ICE agents. (Id., PageID.6.)
On March 5, 2026, Petitioner received a bond hearing before Immigration Judge Ellen
Karesh. (Id.; Immigration Judge Order, ECF No. 1-9, PageID.319.) At the conclusion of that
hearing, in a written order, the Immigration Judge denied Petitioner’s request for bond, stating:
Respondent entered the United States with a work visa with authorization to remain
until November 2002. The Respondent failed to depart as required and did not seek
to extend his legal status of seek relief by other means. The failure of Respondent
to depart as required is indicative of a person who is a flight risk.
Respondent has remained in the United States without permission. Respondent has
been present in the United States in excess of one year. Yet despite Respondent's
lengthy presence in the United States, Respondent did not notify immigration
officials of his unlawful presence until he was detained by immigration officials.
Respondent failed to file any applications for relief with the Court or USCIS until
two days ago. While Respondent filed on March 3, 2026, an Application for
Cancellation of Removal, the burden is great and only a few aliens are granted such
relief. Respondent has not demonstrated he has a sufficient likelihood of success in
reference to any immigration relief.
The court finds Respondent is a flight risk and therefore denies his request for a
change in custody status.
(Immigration Judge Order, ECF No. 1-9, PageID.319.)
III. 	Discussion
In Petitioner’s § 2241 petition, Petitioner argues that the Immigration Judge did not apply
the constitutionally required burden of proof at Petitioner’s § 1226(a) bond hearing on March 5,
2026. Specifically, Petitioner argues that the Immigration Judge failed to require the government
to demonstrate dangerousness or flight risk by clear and convincing evidence. See Soto-Medina v.
Lynch, No. 1:25-cv-1704, --- F. Supp. 3d ----, 2026 WL 161002, at *2 (W.D. Mich. Jan. 21, 2026)
(addressing the constitutionally required burden of proof).
Case 1:26-cv-00952-JMB-RSK ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/08/26 Page 2
of 3

3
Based on the record before the Court at this time, including the recording of the § 1226(a)
bond hearing, there is no indication in the record that the Immigration Judge applied an
unconstitutional burden of proof at the bond hearing. Under these circumstances, the Court will
deny Petitioner’s § 2241 petition without prejudice.
Conclusion
For the reasons discussed above, the Court will enter a judgment denying Petitioner’s
petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 without prejudice.
Dated:
Jane M. Beckering
United States District Judge
April 8, 2026 	/s/ Jane M. Beckering
Case 1:26-cv-00952-JMB-RSK ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/08/26 Page 3
of 3