Mingyuan Yu v. Kristi Noem et al.

Yu · United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan, Southern Division · March 4, 2026 · No. 1:26-cv-292

Summary

The United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan conditionally granted Mingyuan Yu’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The court held that 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), rather than the mandatory-detention provision in § 1225(b)(2)(A), governs the detention of a noncitizen who entered on a visa and was apprehended within the United States, and concluded that the existing detention framework violated due process. Respondents were ordered to provide a bond hearing within five business days or release Yu, and the court dismissed the Attorney General and acting ICE Director as respondents.

Holdings

  1. The court declined to enforce prudential exhaustion against Yu and alternatively held that waiver of exhaustion was appropriate.
  2. Section 1226(a), not 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A), governs a noncitizen such as Yu who was admitted on a visa, resided in the United States, and was apprehended and arrested within the country.
  3. Yu's continued detention under the mandatory-detention framework of 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) violated the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause.
  4. The ICE Detroit Field Office Director was not the only proper respondent. The court retained the field office director and the Secretary for the Department of Homeland Security, and dismissed the Attorney General and the acting ICE Director.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether prudential exhaustion should bar Yu's § 2241 challenge to his immigration detention.
  2. Whether 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), rather than the mandatory-detention provision in 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A), governs a noncitizen who was admitted on a visa, resided in the United States, and was apprehended within the country after overstaying or violating visa conditions.
  3. Whether Yu's detention under the mandatory-detention framework of § 1225(b)(2)(A) violated the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause.
  4. Whether the ICE Detroit Field Office Director was the only proper respondent in the habeas action.

Disposition

writ_granted

Cases Cited (9)

  • Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 525 (2004)(followed)
  • Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 687 (2001)(followed)
  • A. A. R. P. v. Trump, 145 S. Ct. 1364, 1367 (2025)(followed)
  • Matter of Q. Li, 29 I&N Dec. 66 (BIA 2025)(distinguished)
  • Antele Cobix v. Raycraft, No. 1:25-cv-1669, 2025 WL 3562651 (W.D. Mich. Dec. 12, 2025)(followed)
  • Candela Bastidas v. Noem, No. 1:25-cv-1528, 2025 WL 3562638 (W.D. Mich. Dec. 12, 2025)(followed)
  • Acuna Sanchez v. Noem, No. 1:25-cv-1442, 2025 WL 3562577 (W.D. Mich. Dec. 12, 2025)(followed)
  • Penagos Robles v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., No. 1:25-cv-1578, 2025 WL 3558128 (W.D. Mich. Dec. 12, 2025)(followed)
  • Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, 166 F.4th 494, 505 (5th Cir. 2026)(considered)

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…