Gueynoune v. Noem et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
NORTHERN DIVISION
______
EBETA GUEYNOUNE,
Petitioner,
v.
KRISTI NOEM et al.,
Respondents.
____________________________/
Case No. 2:26-cv-5
Honorable Jane M. Beckering
OPINION
Petitioner, a United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detainee currently
detained at the Chippewa County Correctional Facility in Sault Ste. Marie, Chippewa County,
Michigan, initiated this action by filing a counseled 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, Petitioner challenges the lawfulness of his current detention
and asks the Court to, inter alia, assume jurisdiction over this matter and 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. (Pet., ECF No.
1, PageID.13–14.) In an Order entered on January 12, 2026, the Court directed Respondents to
show cause, within three business days, why the writ of habeas corpus and other relief requested
Case 2:26-cv-00005-JMB-MV ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/26/26 Page 1
of 6

2
by Petitioner should not be granted. (Order, ECF No. 4.) Respondents filed their response on
January 15, 2026 (ECF No. 5), and Petitioner filed his reply on January 16, 2026 (ECF No. 6).
II. 	Factual Background
Petitioner is a native and citizen of Mauritania. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.3; Decl. of
William Cooper, ECF No. 5-1, PageID.29.) Petitioner entered the United States on June 10, 2023,
near Lukeville, Arizona. (Decl. of William Cooper, ECF No. 5-1, PageID.29.) On that date, United
States Border Patrol officers encountered Petitioner, and issued him a Form I-862, Notice to
Appear 	(NTA), 	charging 	Petitioner 	with 	inadmissibility 	under 	§ 212(a)(6)(A)(i) 	of 	the
Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) because Petitioner was 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.” (Id.) On June 12, 2023, Petitioner was
released on his own recognizance. (Id., PageID.30.)
On November 28, 2023, Petitioner appeared in the New York, New York Immigration
Court. (Id.) He admitted the allegations in the NTA and conceded he was removable. (Id.)
Mauritania was designated as the country of removal. (Id.) Petitioner applied for asylum and
withholding of removal. (Id.)
On May 8, 2025, Customs and Border Protection Officers were performing outbound
inspection operations and encountered Petitioner at the Detroit-Windsor Canada Port of Entry.
(Id.). The officer detained Petitioner. (Id.) On June 24, 2025, a Detroit Immigration Court Judge
denied Petitioner’s request to be released on bond pursuant to Matter of Q. Li. (Id.)
On November 12, 2025, an immigration judge ordered Petitioner removed from the United
States but withheld removal to Mauritania. (Id.) According to Respondents, Petitioner has refused
to provide information to assist Respondents in identifying a third country for removal. (Id.,
PageID.31.)
Case 2:26-cv-00005-JMB-MV ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/26/26 Page 2
of 6

3
Respondents report that the order of removal is final. (Id., PageID.30; Resp., ECF No. 5,
PageID.22.) Petitioner acknowledges that his appeal of the order or removal was late, but contends
that the appeal is pending and, thus, the order of removal is not administratively final. (Pet’r’s
Reply, ECF No. 6.) The Executive Office for Immigration Review Automated Case Information
System 	indicates 	that 	that 	an 	appeal 	in 	Petitioner’s 	case 	is 	currently 	pending. 	See
https://acis.eoir.justice.gov/en/ (enter Petitioner’s “A-Number” and nationality to access case
information) (last visited February 25, 2026).
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. 	Statutory Basis for Petitioner’s Detention
Respondents contend that Petitioner is detained pursuant to § 241 of the INA, 8 U.S.C.
§ 1231(a) because he is subject to a final order of removal. Petitioner claims that the removal order
is not final and, therefore, Petitioner cannot be detained under § 1231. Instead, Petitioner argues,
he can only be detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and is eligible for discretionary bond or
conditional parole.
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
Case 2:26-cv-00005-JMB-MV ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/26/26 Page 3
of 6

4
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.”).
Because Petitioner’s appeal to the BIA remains pending, § 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.”). Under § 1226(a),
Petitioner may be released from detention on bond or conditional parole. This Court has
determined that a noncitizen detained under § 1226(a) is entitled to a custody redetermination as
set forth in each of the following cases: Antele Cobix v. Raycraft, No. 1:25-cv-1669, 2025 WL
3562651, at *3–6 (W.D. 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).
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).
Case 2:26-cv-00005-JMB-MV ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/26/26 Page 4
of 6

5
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.
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).1
V. 	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.
VI. 	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);
1 The Court is aware of Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, No. 25-20496, --- F.4th ----, 2026 WL
323330 (5th Cir. Feb. 6, 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 2:26-cv-00005-JMB-MV ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/26/26 Page 5
of 6

6
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 Secretary of Homeland Security and
the Acting Director of ICE as Respondents. The Court will dismiss the Attorney General of the
United States as a Respondent.
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. 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. The Court
will dismiss the Attorney General of the United States as a Respondent.
Dated: 	February 26, 2026 	/s/ Jane M. Beckering
Jane M. Beckering
United States District Judge
Case 2:26-cv-00005-JMB-MV ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/26/26 Page 6
of 6