Summary
The United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan conditionally granted Gabriel Marcelo Acosta-Mendez’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The court held that detention was governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), rather than the mandatory-detention provision in § 1225(b)(2)(A), and that the existing detention framework violated the Fifth Amendment. Respondents were ordered to provide a bond hearing within five business days or release the petitioner, and certain respondents were dismissed.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the court should enforce prudential exhaustion of administrative remedies before considering Petitioner's § 2241 challenge to immigration detention.
- Whether 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) or the mandatory-detention provision in 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) governs detention of a noncitizen who had resided in the United States and was apprehended within the country.
- Whether Petitioner's detention under the mandatory-detention framework of § 1225(b)(2)(A) violates the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause.
- Whether the Detroit ICE Field Office Director is the only proper Respondent in a habeas action challenging immigration detention.
Holdings
- The court declined to enforce prudential exhaustion against Petitioner and held in the alternative that waiver of exhaustion was appropriate.
- Section 1226(a), rather than 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A), governs detention of a noncitizen who had resided in the United States and was already present in the country when apprehended and arrested.
- Petitioner's current detention under the mandatory-detention framework of § 1225(b)(2)(A) violates the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause.
- The Detroit ICE Field Office Director is not the only proper Respondent. The court retained the ICE Detroit Field Office Director and the Secretary of Homeland Security and dismissed the Warden of North Lake Processing Center, the Department of Homeland Security, the Attorney General, and the Executive Office for Immigration Review.
Key quotations
“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 or, in the alternative, immediately release Petitioner from custody.” (Conclusion)
Factual background
Petitioner is a Venezuelan citizen who entered the United States in May 2023 without being admitted or paroled and was released after being charged with inadmissibility under INA § 212(a)(6)(A)(i). His removal proceedings were terminated on June 30, 2025, because the government failed to prosecute. ICE arrested him on October 10, 2025, during Operation Midway Blitz, and DHS issued a new notice to appear charging the same inadmissibility ground. Before detention, Petitioner lived in Chicago, possessed valid work authorization, and supported and cared for his ill mother.
Procedural history
Acosta-Mendez initiated the action on December 4, 2025. The court issued a show-cause order on December 8, and Respondents filed a response on December 11. The court declined to enforce prudential exhaustion, alternatively waived exhaustion, reached the merits, conditionally granted habeas relief, and dismissed several named Respondents.
Remand instructions
Respondents must provide Petitioner a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within five business days of the opinion and judgment or immediately release him. Respondents must file a status report within six business days certifying compliance and describing the hearing, bond decision, and any bond conditions or reasons for denial.