Summary
The United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan conditionally granted Byron Martinez Kuvi’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 framework of § 1225(b)(2)(A), and that the existing detention violated the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. 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 prudential exhaustion of administrative remedies should bar or delay Petitioner's § 2241 challenge to his immigration detention.
- Whether 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) or § 1226(a) governs the detention of a noncitizen who had resided in the United States and was already inside the country when apprehended.
- Whether Petitioner's detention under the mandatory-detention framework of § 1225(b)(2)(A) violates the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause.
- Whether the ICE Detroit Field Office Director is the only proper Respondent in the habeas action.
Holdings
- The court declined to enforce prudential exhaustion and alternatively concluded 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 has resided in the United States and was already within the United States when apprehended and arrested for immigration-related reasons.
- Petitioner's current detention under the mandatory-detention framework of 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) violates the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause.
- The ICE Detroit Field Office Director is not the only proper Respondent; the court retained the Field Office Director and the Secretary of Homeland Security and dismissed DHS, the Attorney General, and the Executive Office for Immigration Review.
Key quotations
“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” (Section V.A)
“The Court concludes that Petitioner’s current detention under the mandatory detention framework set forth in § 1225(b)(2)(A) violates Petitioner’s Fifth Amendment due process rights” (Section V.B)
Factual background
Petitioner, a native and citizen of Ecuador, entered the United States without inspection in August 2023 and was charged with inadmissibility under INA § 212(a)(6)(A)(i). DHS initially released him on his own recognizance under 8 U.S.C. § 1226. After Petitioner filed applications for asylum and withholding of removal, ICE arrested him on February 3, 2026, during a targeted operation; he had no criminal history and was detained at the North Lake Processing Center.
Procedural history
Petitioner filed a counseled § 2241 petition challenging his detention and seeking release or a bond hearing. The court severed Petitioner's claims from those of a second petitioner, ordered Respondents to show cause, received Respondents' response and Petitioner's reply, and conditionally granted the petition. The court ordered a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) or immediate release and dismissed several named Respondents.
Remand instructions
No remand was ordered. Respondents must provide Petitioner with a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within five business days of the Opinion and Judgment, with notice to the parties no later than 24 hours before the hearing, or immediately release Petitioner. Respondents must file a compliance status report within six business days.