govinfo:USCOURTS-miwd-1_26-cv-01775-0

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 
SOUTHERN DIVISION 
______ 
 
ELVER SONZA SANCHEZ, 
 
Petitioner, 
 
v. 
 
THE GEO GROUP, INC. et al., 
 
Respondents. 
____________________________/ 
 
 

 
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 th e 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.17.) In an order entered on June 9, 2026, the Court directed 
Respondents to show cause, within three business days, why the writ of habeas corpus should not 
Case 1:26-cv-01775-JMB-MV ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 06/17/26 Page 1
of 4
 
2 
 
be granted. (Order, ECF No. 3.) Respondents filed their response and a recording of the September 
30, 2025, bond hearing on June 12, 2026, (Resp., ECF No. 4; Recording of Sept. 12, 2026, Bond 
Hearing, filed on Jun. 12, 2026.) 
II. Factual Background 
Petitioner is a citizen of Columbia who entered the United States in 2024. (Oct. 30, 2025, 
Immigration Judge Order, ECF No. 4-1, PageID.49.) On July 20, 2025, Petitioner was arrested by 
ICE agents. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.5.) 
On September 26, 2025, the Cleveland Immigration Court ordered Petitioner removed from 
the United States. (Oct. 30, 2025, Immigration Judge Order, ECF No. 4-1, PageID.50.) Petitioner 
appealed that decision to the Board of Immigra tion Appeals (BIA). (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.5.) 
Because Petitioner’s appeal to the BIA remains pending, Petitione r’s order of removal is not 
“administratively final” for purposes of the INA.
1 See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(47)(B), 
1231(a)(1)(B)(i), 1231(a)(2)(A). 
 
1 Section 1231 of Title 8, titled, “Detention and rem oval of aliens ordered removed,” provides in 
relevant part that, “[d]uring the removal period, the Attorney General shall detain the alien.” 
8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(2)(A). However, as relevant to this case, the removal period does not begin to 
run until “[t]he date the order of re moval becomes administratively final.” Id. § 1231(a)(1)(B)(i). 
For the purposes of § 1231(a)(1)(B)(i), a removal order “shall become final upon the earlier of (i) a 
determination by the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming such an order; or (ii) the expiration 
of the period in which the alien is permitted to seek review of such order by the Board of 
Immigration Appeals.” Id. § 1101(a)(47)(B); see Jusufi v. Chertoff , No. 07-15450, 2007 WL 
4591760, at *4 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 28, 2007) (discuss ing that a final removal order becomes 
administratively final when the BIA denies an appeal of it); see also Johnson v. Guzman Chavez, 
594 U.S. 523, 534–35 (2021) (“[O]nce the BIA has revi ewed [and affirmed] the [removal] order 
(or the time for seeking the BIA’s review ha s expired), DHS is free to remove the alien unless a 
court issues a stay. That reinfo rces why Congress included ‘admin istratively’ before the word 
‘final’ in the first pr ovision.”). Because Petitioner’s appeal to the BIA remains pending, § 1231 
does not apply, and § 1226(a) governs Petitioner’s detention. See Johnson, 594 U.S. at 533 (“The 
parties agree that § 1226 governs the detention of aliens until § 1231’s ‘removal period’ begins.”). 
Case 1:26-cv-01775-JMB-MV ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 06/17/26 Page 2
of 4
 
3 
 
On September 30, 2025, the immigration court held a bond hearing at Petitioner’s request. 
(Oct. 30, 2025, Immigration Judge Order, ECF No. 4-1, PageID.50; Recording of Sept. 30, 2026, 
Bond Hearing, filed on Jun. 12, 2026.) At the conc lusion of that hearing, the immigration judge 
denied Petitioner’s request for bond, stating: 
The Court does not [have] authority to redetermine bond in their case as this Court 
recently issued a removal order after a denial of [Petitioner’s] I-589 application. In 
the alternative, the Court would find that [Petitioner] is a flight risk due to his lack 
of available relief. 
(Oct. 2, 2025, Immigration Judge Order, ECF No. 4-4, PageID.58.) On October 30, 2025, the 
immigration court held a second custody hearing and denied Petitioner’s request for bond, finding 
“that [Petitioner] failed to demonstrate that he is not a flight risk.” (Oct. 30, 2025, Immigration 
Judge Order, ECF No. 4-1, PageID.50.) 
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). Ther efore, for the reas ons 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 whic h time the government w ill have the burden to 
Case 1:26-cv-01775-JMB-MV ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 06/17/26 Page 3
of 4
 
4 
 
demonstrate dangerousness or flight risk by clear and convin cing evidence, within five business 
days and with notice to the Parties as soon as practicable, no later th an 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 
denied, and if bond was granted, the conditions of the bond, or if bond was denied, the reasons for 
the denial. 
 
Dated: June 17, 2026 /s/ Jane M. Beckerin
g 
Jane M. Beckering 
United States District Judge 
 
 
 
Case 1:26-cv-01775-JMB-MV ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 06/17/26 Page 4
of 4

Passage view · GavelSight