govinfo:USCOURTS-miwd-1_26-cv-01802-0

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 
SOUTHERN DIVISION 
______ 
 
JOBRANNY JOSE MORENO 
BLONDELL, 
 
Petitioner, 
 
v. 
 
UNKNOWN PARTY et al., 
 
Respondents. 
____________________________/ 
 
 

 
Honorable Hala Y. Jarbou 
 
 
 
 
 
OPINION 
Petitioner, a United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detainee, 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 the petition for a writ of habeas 
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 
Discussion 
I. Procedural History 
The habeas petition challenges the lawfulness of Petitioner’s current detention and asks the 
Court to, inter alia , issue a writ of habeas corpus pur suant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 ordering 
Respondents to release Petitioner. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.5.) 1 In an order entered on June 9, 
2026, the Court directed Respondents to show cause , within three business days, why the writ of 
 
1 With his petition, Petitioner also filed an emer gency motion for immediate release (ECF No. 4) 
and an emergency motion for stay of removal, st ate of transfer, and immediate release (ECF No. 
5) during the pendency of the proceedings. As se t forth herein, the Court will conditionally grant 
Petitioner’s § 2241 petition, which resolves the case. Therefore, Petitioner’s pending motions are 
dismissed as moot. 
Case 1:26-cv-01802-HYJ-SJB ECF No. 12, PageID.<pageID> Filed 06/18/26 Page 1
of 5
 
2 
 
habeas corpus and other relief requested by Petitioner should not be granted. (Order, ECF No. 7.) 
Respondents filed their response on June 12, 2026, (ECF No. 9.) 
II. Factual Background 
Petitioner is a native and c itizen of Venezuela. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.2.) The 
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) permitted Petitioner to enter the United States in March 
of 2023,
2 and Petitioner has remained in the United States since that time. (See Notice to Appear 
(NTA), ECF No. 9-2, PageID.66 .) On April 23, 2026, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) 
agents encountered and arrested Petitioner. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.2.) 
Respondents have not provided Petitioner an individualized bond hearing before an 
immigration judge as contemplated by 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a).3 
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 upon the federal courts 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 in cludes 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). 
 
2 Petitioner was paroled into the United States for a period of one year, until March 23, 2024. (See 
2026 Form I-213, ECF No. 9-1, PageID.63.) Petitioner does not contend that he remained paroled 
at the time that he was arrested by DHS. (See generally Pet., ECF No. 1.) 
3 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 1:26-cv-01802-HYJ-SJB ECF No. 12, PageID.<pageID> Filed 06/18/26 Page 2
of 5
 
3 
 
IV. Merits Discussion 
A. Statutory Basis for Petitioner’s Detention 
Based on the facts presented by the parties, and the reasoning of the Sixth Circuit Court of 
Appeals in Lopez-Campos v. Raycraft , 175 F.4th 713 (6th Cir. 2026), the Court concludes that 
§ 1226(a), not § 1225(b)(2)(A), governs Petitioner’s detention.4 
B. Fifth Amendment Due Process Considerations 
The Fifth Amendment guarantees that “[n]o person shall . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or 
property, without due process of law.” U.S. Const. amend. V. In Lopez-Campos, the Sixth Circuit 
Court of Appeals explained: 
Noncitizens who have “passed through our ga tes, even illegally, may be expelled 
only after proceedings conforming to traditional standards of fairness encompassed 
in due process of law.” Shaughnessy v. United States ex rel. Mezei , 345 U.S. 206, 
212 (1953); see also Yamataya v. Fisher , 189 U.S. 86, 100–01 (1903). Thus, 
noncitizens within the interior of the United States are entitled to the protections of 
the Due Process Clause, “whether their presence here is lawful, unlawful, 
temporary, or permanent.” Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 693 (2001). “It is well 
established that the Fifth Amendment enti tles aliens to due process of law in 
[removal] proceedings.” Reno v. Flores , 507 U.S. 292, 306 (1993 ); see also 
Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510, 523 (2003). Consequently, the government may not 
deny “notice” or “an opportunity to be heard” to a noncitizen “who has entered the 
country, and has become subject in all resp ects to its jurisdiction, and a part of its 
population, although alleged to be illegally here.” Yamataya, 189 U.S. at 100–01. 
 
4 Additionally, for the same reasons set forth in Hernandez Montiel v. Raycraft, No. 1:25-cv-1610, 
2026 WL 32076 (W.D. Mich. Jan. 6, 2026), the Court disagrees with Respondents’ argument that 
Petitioner’s detention is governed by § 1225 because he was parole d into the country after being 
detained at the border. As that court explaine d, the INA indicates that noncitizens released on 
parole are treated like “any other applican t for admission” after that parole ends. See 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1182(d)(5)(A). And § 1226(a) a pplies to such individuals pending their removal, not 
§ 1225(b)(2)(A), which only applies to applicants “seeking admission.” See Hernandez Montiel, 
2026 WL 32076, at *3. As someon e already present in the Unite d States, even if illegally, 
Petitioner is not seeking admission. See Lopez-Campos, 175 F.4th at 732. 
Case 1:26-cv-01802-HYJ-SJB ECF No. 12, PageID.<pageID> Filed 06/18/26 Page 3
of 5
 
4 
 
Lopez-Campos, 175 F.4th at 732. The Sixth Circuit therefore upheld the lower courts’ 
determinations the government’s detention of the Lopez-Campos petitioners “without bond under 
§ 1226(a) was a deprivation of liberty that violated [their] due process rights.” Id. at 734. 
Petitioner is likewise detained under § 1226(a) and has been denied an individualized bond 
hearing. Therefore, the Court c oncludes that Petitioner’s current detention under the mandatory 
detention framework set forth in § 1225(b)(2)(A) violates Pe titioner’s Fifth Amendment due 
process rights. See id.; see also Antele Cobix v. Raycraft , No. 1:25-cv-1669, 2025 WL 3562651, 
at *6–8 (W.D. Mich. Dec. 12, 2025); Candela Bastidas v. Noem , No. 1:25-cv-1528, 2025 WL 
3562638, at *7–8 (W.D. Mich. Dec. 12, 2025); Acuna Sanchez v. Noem, No. 1:25-cv-1442, 2025 
WL 3562577, at *7–9 (W.D. Mich. Dec. 12, 2025); Penagos Robles v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland 
Sec., No. 1:25-cv-1578, 2025 WL 3558128, at *6–8 (W.D. Mich. Dec. 12, 2025). 
V. 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. 
VI. Proper Respondents 
Respondents argue that the Detroit ICE Field Office Director is the only proper Respondent 
in this action. They seek the dismissal of the other named Re spondents. The Court concludes 
that the ICE Detroit Field Office Director is not the only proper Respondent for the reasons set 
forth in the Court’s analysis of the same argument in each of the following cases: Antele Cobix v. 
Raycraft, No. 1:25-cv-1669, 2025 WL 3562651, at *8–9 (W.D. Mich. Dec. 12, 2025); 
Candela Bastidas v. Noem, No. 1:25-cv-1528, 2025 WL 3562638, at *8–9 (W.D. Mich. Dec. 12, 
2025); Acuna Sanchez v. Noem, No. 1:25-cv-1442, 2025 WL 3562577, at *9–10 (W.D. Mich. Dec. 
12, 2025); Penagos Robles v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., No. 1:25-cv-1578, 2025 WL 3558128, 
at *9–10 (W.D. Mich. Dec. 12, 2025). To ensure that this Court’s orders regarding habeas relief 
Case 1:26-cv-01802-HYJ-SJB ECF No. 12, PageID.<pageID> Filed 06/18/26 Page 4
of 5
 
5 
 
will bind at least one Respondent wi th authority to act in the even t that Petitioner is transferred 
outside the area under the authority of the ICE Detroit Field Office, the Court will retain all of the 
remaining Respondents. 
Conclusion 
For the reasons discussed above, the Court w ill enter a judgment conditionally granting 
Petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The Court will order 
Respondents to provide Petitione r with a bond hearing under 8 U. S.C. § 1226(a) within five 
business days of the date of this Court’s opini on and judgment with notice to the Parties as soon 
as practicable, no later than 24 hours prior to th e scheduled hearing, or, in the alternative, 
immediately release Petitioner from custody.5 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 a nd the corresponding judgment. The status report shall include if 
and when the bond hearing occurred, if bond was granted or denied, and if bond was granted, the 
conditions of the bond, or if bond was denied, the reasons for the denial. 
 
Dated: June 18, 2026 /s/ Hala Y. Jarbou 
HALA Y. JARBOU 
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 
 
 
 
5 This Court has adopted a standard practice of requiring such a hearing within five business days, 
even if the Petitioner requests a deadline that is shorter or longer or only release. 
Case 1:26-cv-01802-HYJ-SJB ECF No. 12, PageID.<pageID> Filed 06/18/26 Page 5
of 5

Passage view · GavelSight