Perez Valera v. Unknown Party et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
______
LUIS ALBERTO PEREZ VALERA,
Petitioner,
v.
UNKNOWN PARTY et al.,
Respondents.
____________________________/
Case No. 1:26-cv-1463
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 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, he challenges the constitutionality of his current detention
following an order issued by the Detroit Immigration Court denying him bond, and asks the Court
to, inter alia, issue a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 ordering Respondents to
release Petitioner or provide Petitioner with a bond hearing where the government bears the burden
of proof by clear and convincing evidence that Petitioner is a flight risk or danger to the
community. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.4.) In an Order entered on May 5, 2026, the Court directed
Respondents to show cause, within three business days, why the writ of habeas corpus should not
Case 1:26-cv-01463-JMB-RSK ECF No. 13, PageID.<pageID> Filed 05/27/26 Page 1
of 4

2
be granted. (Order, ECF No. 8.) Respondents filed their response and a recording of the April 23,
2026, bond hearing on May 7, 2026, (Resp., ECF No. 9; Recording of April 23, 2026, Bond
Hearing, filed on May 7, 2026), and Petitioner filed his reply on May 18, 2026, (ECF No. 11).
II. 	Factual Background
Petitioner is a citizen of Venezuela who entered the United States in 2023. (Pet., ECF No. 1,
PageID.2.; Resp., ECF No. 9, PageID.53.) On February 5, 2026, ICE arrested Petitioner. (Pet.,
ECF No. 1, PageID.2.)
On March 12, 2026, Petitioner filed a § 2241 petition challenging his initial detention
without a bond hearing in Perez Valera v. Raycraft (Perez Valera I), No. 1:26-cv-810 (W.D.
Mich.). In Perez Valera I, the Court conditionally granted Petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, ordering Respondents to provide Petitioner with a bond
hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within five business days of the date of the Court’s Opinion and
Judgment or, in the alternative, immediately release Petitioner from custody. Op. & Jud., Perez
Valera I, (W.D. Mich. April 20, 2026), (ECF Nos. 13, 14).
On April 23, 2026, Petitioner received a bond hearing pursuant to § 1226(a). (Resp., ECF
No. 9, PageID.53.) At that hearing, the immigration judge questioned Petitioner about Petitioner’s
living situation and about where Petitioner worked. (Recording of April 23, 2026, Bond Hearing,
at 4:30–6:05, filed on May 7, 2026.) The immigration judge also confirmed with Petitioner that
Petitioner had never been arrested (except his immigration arrest) nor failed to appear for any court
appearances. (Id. at 6:25-6:50.) The immigration judge told Petitioner, “Sir, it is your burden to
show that you are not a flight risk. So, while I took your testimony, I find your testimony alone is
insufficient to meet your burden.” (Id. at 8:08-8:24.) At the conclusion of the April 23, 2026, bond
hearing, the immigration judge denied Petitioner’s request for bond in a written order, stating:
“Denied, because Respondent is a flight risk. This can not [sic] be mitigated by a bond.”
Case 1:26-cv-01463-JMB-RSK ECF No. 13, PageID.<pageID> Filed 05/27/26 Page 2
of 4

3
(Immigration Judge Order, ECF No. 9-1, PageID.65.) The immigration judge further clarified:
“You [Petitioner] haven’t proven to me [immigration judge] that you’re not a flight risk.”
(Recording of April 23, 2026, Bond Hearing, at 9:30–9:33, filed on May 7, 2026.)
III. 	Analysis
Respondents argue that the Court should deny Petitioner’s § 2241 petition due to a lack of
jurisdiction and Petitioner’s failure to exhaust Petitioner’s administrative remedies, as well as on
the merits. The Court has fully addressed these issues and Respondents’ arguments in Soto-Medina
v. Lynch, 817 F. Supp. 3d 612 (W.D. Mich. 2026). Therefore, for the reasons set forth in Soto-
Medina, the Court will conditionally grant Petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
IV. 	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.
Conclusion
The Court will order Respondents to provide Petitioner with an individualized bond
hearing before an immigration judge, at which time the government will have the burden to
demonstrate dangerousness or flight risk by clear and convincing evidence, within five business
days and 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
Case 1:26-cv-01463-JMB-RSK ECF No. 13, PageID.<pageID> Filed 05/27/26 Page 3
of 4

4
denied, and if bond was granted, the conditions of the bond, or if bond was denied, the reasons for
the denial.
Dated: 	May 27, 2026 	/s/ Jane M. Beckering
Jane M. Beckering
United States District Judge
Case 1:26-cv-01463-JMB-RSK ECF No. 13, PageID.<pageID> Filed 05/27/26 Page 4
of 4