Adeleke v. Unknown Party #1 et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
______
OLUNIYI ADEWALE ADELEKE,
Petitioner,
v.
UNKNOWN PARTY #1 et al.,
Respondents.
____________________________/
Case No. 1:26-cv-1780
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 writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Pet.,
ECF No. 1.) For the following reasons, the Court will dismiss 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 lawfulness of his current detention
following an order issued by the Detroit Immigration Court denying him bond and asks the Court
to, inter alia, accept jurisdiction over this action, declare that Respondents’ actions violate the Due
Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, and issue a writ of habeas corpus ordering Respondents
to release Petitioner. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.7.)
In an Order entered on June 11, 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. 6.) Respondents filed their response and a recording of the
Case 1:26-cv-01780-JMB-SJB ECF No. 9, PageID.<pageID> Filed 06/23/26 Page 1
of 4

2
November 20, 2025, bond hearing on June 16, 2026. (Resp., ECF No. 7; Recording of Nov. 20,
2025, Bond Hearing, filed on June 16, 2026.)
II. 	Relevant Factual Background
Petitioner is a citizen of Nigeria who entered the United States in 2018. (Notice to
Appear, ECF No. 7-1, PageID.119.) On November 3, 2025, ICE arrested Petitioner. (Form I-213,
ECF No. 7-2, PageID.124.)
On November 20, 2025, Petitioner received a bond hearing pursuant to § 1226(a).
(Immigration Judge Order, ECF No. 7-6, PageID.137.) At the conclusion of the November 20,
2025, hearing, in a written order, the Immigration Judge denied Petitioner’s request for bond,
stating, “[the] Court finds [Petitioner] to be a flight risk based on the lack of ties to the community
and the very recent marriage and filing of relief.” (Id.)
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).
IV. 	Discussion
In this case, Petitioner had a bond hearing in the Detroit Immigration Court on November
20, 2025. (Immigration Judge Order, ECF No. 7-6, PageID.137.) The Immigration Judge denied
Petitioner’s request for bond, concluding that Petitioner was a flight risk. (Id.) In his § 2241
petition, Petitioner challenges the findings of the Detroit Immigration Court as related to the denial
Case 1:26-cv-01780-JMB-SJB ECF No. 9, PageID.<pageID> Filed 06/23/26 Page 2
of 4

3
of his bond, arguing that Petitioner is “not a danger to the community [nor] a flight risk” and that
the Immigration Judge failed to consider Petitioner’s evidence during the November 20, 2025,
bond hearing. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.6; Declaration of Petitioner, ECF No. 1-1.) Respondents
argue, inter alia, that the Court should dismiss Petitioner’s petition because Petitioner has not
exhausted his administrative remedies. (Resp., ECF No. 7, PageID.108–116.)
Noncitizens “who are held in custody under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), while their petitions for
review of their removal orders are pending, are entitled to a bond hearing before an immigration
judge.” Leonardo v. Crawford, 646 F.3d 1157, 1160 (9th Cir. 2011) (citation omitted); see, e.g.,
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). If the noncitizen is “dissatisfied with the
[immigration judge’s] bond determination,” the noncitizen ordinarily must “file an administrative
appeal so that ‘the necessity of detention can be reviewed by . . . the BIA.’” Leonardo, 646 F.3d
at 1160 (citation omitted). There are exceptions to this general rule. For example, the United States
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has noted that due process challenges that are not premised
on “correctable procedural errors” generally do not require exhaustion because the BIA cannot
review constitutional challenges. See Sterkaj v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 273, 279 (6th Cir. 2006)
(discussing that “an alien’s due process challenge generally does not require exhaustion” because
“the BIA lacks authority to review constitutional challenges,” but noting that an “alien must raise
correctable procedural errors to the BIA”). “When a petitioner does not exhaust administrative
remedies, a district court ordinarily should either dismiss the petition without prejudice or stay the
Case 1:26-cv-01780-JMB-SJB ECF No. 9, PageID.<pageID> Filed 06/23/26 Page 3
of 4

4
proceedings until the petitioner has exhausted remedies, unless exhaustion is excused.” Leonardo,
646 F.3d at 1160.
In this case, although Petitioner argues that his detention generally violates the Due Process
Clause of the Fifth Amendment, Petitioner’s specific claims involve challenges to the immigration
judge’s factual determinations in the bond decision. (See Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.2–7.) Petitioner
does not argue that the procedures of the bond hearing itself violated the Due Process Clause of
the Fifth Amendment. Under these circumstances, the issues raised in the present § 2241 petition
are issues that must first be raised to the BIA. Petitioner’s appeal to the BIA remains pending. (Id.,
PageID.5.) Therefore, Petitioner has not exhausted his administrative remedies, and Petitioner has
not demonstrated grounds for excusing the exhaustion requirement in this case.
Conclusion
For the reasons discussed above, the Court will enter a Judgment dismissing Petitioner’s
petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 without prejudice.
Dated: 	June 23, 2026 	/s/ Jane M. Beckering
Jane M. Beckering
United States District Judge
Case 1:26-cv-01780-JMB-SJB ECF No. 9, PageID.<pageID> Filed 06/23/26 Page 4
of 4