Mendoza Gonzalez et al v. Unknown Party #2 et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
NORTHERN DIVISION
______
JHON ANDERSON MENDOZA
GONZALEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
UNKNOWN PARTY #2 et al.,
Respondents.
____________________________/
Case No. 2:26-cv-226
Honorable Jane M. Beckering
OPINION
Petitioner, a United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detainee, initiated
this action by filing a pro se 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 dismiss Petitioner’s petition for a writ
of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 without prejudice.
Discussion
I. 	Procedural History
In Petitioner’s § 2241 petition, Petitioner challenges the lawfulness of his current detention
and asks the Court to, inter alia, 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 § 1226(a) bond
hearing. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.10–11.)
In an order entered on September 25, 2026, the Court directed Respondents to show cause,
within three business days, why the writ of habeas corpus and other relief requested by Petitioner
should not be granted. (Order, ECF No. 4.) Respondents filed their response on September 30,
2026. (ECF No. 5.)
Case 2:26-cv-00226-JMB-MV ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/13/26 Page 1
of 4

2
II. 	Relevant Factual Background
Petitioner is a native and citizen of Venezuela. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.9.) Petitioner
entered the United States in 2019 “as a nonimmigrant Visitor for Pleasure with authorization to
remain in the United States for a temporary period not to exceed December 10, 2019.” (Notice to
Appear (NTA), ECF No. 5-1, PageID.45.)
On July 23, 2026, ICE arrested Petitioner in the United States. (2026 Form I-213, ECF
No. 5-2, PageID.50.) Thereafter, on July 25, 2026, ICE issued Petitioner a Form I-862, NTA,
charging Petitioner with removability under Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) “[s]ection
237(a)(1)(B) . . . [because he] ha[d] remained in the United States for a time longer than permitted.”
(NTA, ECF No. 5-1, PageID.45.) Petitioner was scheduled for a master calendar hearing in
Immigration Court on August 17, 2026. (Id.)1
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).
1 The materials submitted by the parties do not suggest that Petitioner is subject to a final order of
removal or that Petitioner is subject to detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c).
Case 2:26-cv-00226-JMB-MV ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/13/26 Page 2
of 4

3
IV. 	Discussion
Noncitizens “who are held in custody under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), while their petitions for
review of their removal orders are pending, are entitled to a bond hearing before an immigration
judge.” Leonardo v. Crawford, 646 F.3d 1157, 1160 (9th Cir. 2011) (citation omitted); cf. Lopez-
Campos v. Raycraft, 175 F.4th 713 (6th Cir. 2026). If the noncitizen is “dissatisfied with the
[immigration judge’s] bond determination,” the noncitizen ordinarily must “file an administrative
appeal so that ‘the necessity of detention can be reviewed by . . . the [Board of Immigration
Appeals] [(]BIA[)].’” Leonardo, 646 F.3d at 1160 (citation omitted). There are exceptions to this
general rule. For example, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has noted that
due process challenges that are not premised on “correctable procedural errors” generally do not
require exhaustion because the BIA cannot review constitutional challenges. See Sterkaj v.
Gonzales, 439 F.3d 273, 279 (6th Cir. 2006) (discussing that “an alien’s due process challenge
generally does not require exhaustion” because “the BIA lacks authority to review constitutional
challenges,” but noting that an “alien must raise correctable procedural errors to the BIA”). “When
a petitioner does not exhaust administrative remedies, a district court ordinarily should either
dismiss the petition without prejudice or stay the proceedings until the petitioner has exhausted
remedies, unless exhaustion is excused.” Leonardo, 646 F.3d at 1160.
In this case, Petitioner asks the Court to order his immediate release or to order
Respondents to hold a bond hearing pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.10–
11.) Respondents, through counsel, acknowledge that § 1226 governs Petitioner’s present
detention because he overstayed his visa after being lawfully admitted to the United States, and
they concede that he “is entitled to request a custody redetermination hearing” in Immigration
Court under § 1226(a). (Resp., ECF No. 5, PageID.41.) Respondents argue, inter alia, that the
Case 2:26-cv-00226-JMB-MV ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/13/26 Page 3
of 4

4
Court should dismiss Petitioner’s petition because Petitioner has not exhausted his administrative
remedies. (Id., PageID.43.)
There is no indication in the record presently before the Court that Petitioner has requested
a bond hearing under § 1226(a) in Immigration Court. Therefore, Petitioner has not exhausted his
administrative remedies, and Petitioner has not demonstrated grounds for excusing the exhaustion
requirement in this case. Accordingly, the Court will dismiss the petition for writ of habeas corpus
without prejudice.2
Conclusion
For the reasons discussed above, the Court will enter a judgment dismissing Petitioner’s
petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 without prejudice.
Dated:
Jane M. Beckering
United States District Judge
2 If contrary to Respondents’ concession in their brief, when Petitioner requests a bond hearing in
Immigration Court, Respondents do not in fact provide Petitioner with a § 1226(a) bond hearing
where the Immigration Judge concludes that he or she has jurisdiction to consider the bond request,
then Petitioner would be free to file a new § 2241 petition requesting that this Court order
Respondents to provide Petitioner with a § 1226(a) bond hearing.
October 13, 2026 /s/ Jane M. Beckering
Case 2:26-cv-00226-JMB-MV ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/13/26 Page 4
of 4