Kenny Alwin Bracho Davila v. Warden, North Lake Processing Center et al.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION ______ KENNY ALWIN BRACHO DAVILA, Petitioner, Case No. 1:26-cv-579 v. Honorable Robert J. Jonker WARDEN, NORTH LAKE PROCESSING CENTER et al., Respondents. ____________________________/ 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 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 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, 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 bond hearing to satisfy the requirements of due process. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.7.)

In an order entered on February 26, 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. 5.) Respondents filed their response on March 3, 2026. (ECF No. 6.)

II. Factual Background Petitioner is a native and citizen of Venezuela. (Notice to Appear (NTA), ECF No. 6-1, PageID.176.) Petitioner entered the United States on or about August 22, 2022, at or near Eagle Pass, Texas, without inspection. (Id.) After Petitioner entered the United States, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) agents encountered and arrested Petitioner. (2022 Form I-213, ECF No. 6-2, PageID.180–181.) At that time, DHS issued Petitioner a Form I-862, NTA, charging Petitioner with inadmissibility under § 212(a)(6)(A)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) because Petitioner is an immigrant “present in the United States without being admitted or paroled, or who entered into the United States at any time or place other than as designated by the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security.” (NTA, ECF No. 6-1, PageID.176.) DHS then released Petitioner into the United States on his own recognizance “[i]n accordance with section of the [INA],” which is codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1226. (Order of Release on Recognizance, ECF No. 6-4, PageID.186.) Petitioner has no criminal history. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.3.)

Petitioner subsequently applied for, and received, employment authorization. (Application, ECF No. 1-3, PageID.26; Approval Notice, ECF No. 1-4, PageID.34.) Additionally, Petitioner applied for, and was granted, Temporary Protected Status (TPS)1 from September 11, 2024, to Under 8 U.S.C. § 1254a, the Secretary for the Department of Homeland Security may designate a foreign state for TPS when nationals of that state cannot return there safely due to armed conflict, natural disaster, or other “extraordinary and temporary conditions,” unless the Secretary “finds that permitting the [noncitizens] to remain temporarily in the United States is contrary to the national interest of the United States.”

Nat’l TPS All. v. Noem, 150 F.4th 1000, 1010 (9th Cir. 2025) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1254a(b)(1)(C)).

“Such a designation permits certain nationals of the foreign state, who have continuously resided April 2, 2025. (TPS Approval Notice, ECF No. 1-4, PageID.35.) Petitioner also applied for asylum and withholding of removal. (Receipt Notice, ECF No. 1-3, PageID.31.)

On November 28, 2025, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) agents encountered and arrested Petitioner while he was on his way to work. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.3; 2025 Form I-213, ECF No. 6-6, PageID.194.) Petitioner requested a custody redetermination, which the Detroit Immigration Court denied after it determined that it lacked jurisdiction to consider that request. (Order Immigration Judge, ECF No. 6-8, PageID.199.) Petitioner was scheduled for an individual hearing on March 5, 2026, in the Detroit Immigration Court.2 (Notice of In-Person Hearing, ECF No. 6-9, PageID.202.)

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. in the United States since the effective date of the designation, to register for employment authorization and protection from deportation for the duration of the TPS period.” Id. (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1254a(a)(1), (b)(2)). Additionally, there are other restrictions, including, for example, that applicants for TPS “must not have been ‘convicted of any felony or 2 or more misdemeanors committed in the United States.’” Id. (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1254a(c)(2)(B)(i)). Further, “TPS does not provide beneficiaries with a pathway to permanent resident status, nor does it include any right to petition for visas on behalf of family members in the United States or abroad.” Id. With respect to TPS for Venezuela, “[o]n January 17, 2025, Secretary Mayorkas extended the 2023 [TPS] Designation by eighteen months, through October 2, 2026.” Nat’l TPS All. v. Noem, 166 F.4th 739, 751 (9th Cir. 2026) (footnote and citation omitted). “The extension was set to become effective on April 3, 2025,” the day after the 2023 TPS Designation was due to expire. Id. (citation omitted). “On January 24, 2025, DHS began drafting the decision to vacate the TPS extension” for Venezuela. Id. Thereafter, on January 26, 2025, “DHS began drafting a termination of Venezuela’s TPS.” Id. On January 28, 2025, Secretary Noem signed off on the decision to vacate the January 17, 2025, extension of TPS for Venezuela, meaning that the 2023 TPS Designation for Venezuela effectively expired on April 2, 2025. (Id.) Subsequently, on February 1, 2025, “Secretary Noem signed off on the termination [of TPS]” for Venezuela. Id. (citation omitted). Secretary Noem did not terminate the 2021 TPS Designation for Venezuela, however, the 2021 TPS Designation “had only been extended to September 10, 2025.” Id. (citation omitted).

2 The parties do not provide any other information about the March 5, 2026, hearing.

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).

IV. Exhaustion Respondents argue that the Court should deny Petitioner’s request for habeas corpus relief because Petitioner has not exhausted his administrative remedies. Specifically, Respondents argue that Petitioner should pursue a bond hearing and, if necessary, appeal any unfavorable decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals.

The Court declines to enforce the doctrine of prudential exhaustion against Petitioner, and even if the Court were to conclude that exhaustion is warranted, the Court concludes in the alternative that waiver of exhaustion is appropriate, for the reasons set forth in the Court’s exhaustion analysis in each of the following cases: Antele Cobix v. Raycraft, No. 1:25-cv-1669, 2025 WL 3562651, at *2–3 (W.D. Mich. Dec. 12, 2025); Candela Bastidas v. Noem, No. 1:25-cv- 1528, 2025 WL 3562638, at *2–4 (W.D. Mich. Dec. 12, 2025); Acuna Sanchez v. Noem, No. 1:25- cv-1442, 2025 WL 3562577, at *2–4 (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 *2–3 (W.D. Mich. Dec. 12, 2025).

Accordingly, the Court will proceed to address the merits of Petitioner’s § 2241 petition.

V. Merits Discussion A. Statutory Basis for Petitioner’s Detention Respondents contend that Petitioner meets every element for detention under § 1225(b)(2), and that the statute’s structure and history support Respondents’ interpretation.3 The Court concludes that § 1226(a), not § 1225(b)(2)(A), governs noncitizens, such as Petitioner, who have resided in the United States and were already within the United States when apprehended and arrested for the reasons set forth in the Court’s statutory analysis in each of the following cases: Antele Cobix v. Raycraft, No. 1:25-cv-1669, 2025 WL 3562651, at *3–6 (W.D.

Mich. Dec. 12, 2025); Candela Bastidas v. Noem, No. 1:25-cv-1528, 2025 WL 3562638, at *4–6 (W.D. Mich. Dec. 12, 2025); Acuna Sanchez v. Noem, No. 1:25-cv-1442, 2025 WL 3562577, at *4–7 (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 *3–6 (W.D. Mich. Dec. 12, 2025).4

3 Petitioner’s claim that Respondents have unlawfully detained Petitioner does not depend on Petitioner’s TPS designation. Even if Petitioner relied on his TPS status, the Court would not provide any additional relief. As set forth above, Secretary Noem vacated the extension of the 2023 TPS Designation for Venezuela and then signed off on the termination of TPS for Venezuela.

See supra note 2. The validity of Secretary Noem’s actions regarding TPS for Venezuela is currently being litigated. In October 2025, the United States Supreme Court allowed the termination of TPS for Venezuela to take effect pending the Government’s appeal and “disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari, if such writ is timely sought.” Noem v. Nat’l TPS All., 146 S.

Ct. 23, 24 (2025). On January 28, 2026, in National TPS Alliance v. Noem, 166 F.4th 739 (9th Cir. 2026), the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the United States District Court for the Northern District of California’s finding that Secretary Noem exceeded her statutory authority by revoking TPS protections for Venezuelans and Haitians. At this time, based on the procedural history of National TPS Alliance v. Noem, this Ninth Circuit case does not affect the Court’s analysis in this habeas action. Cf. Nat’l TPS All., 146 S. Ct. at 24 (allowing the termination of TPS for Venezuelan nationals to take effect pending the Government’s appeal).

4 The Court is aware of Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, 166 F.4th 494 (5th Cir. 2026), which was recently issued by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. At this time, this non- binding case does not change the Court’s analysis.

B. Fifth Amendment Due Process Considerations Petitioner also argues that his detention violates the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. Respondents counter Petitioner’s arguments by stating that Petitioner has received notice of the charges against him, has access to counsel, may attend hearings with an immigration judge, has the right to appeal the denial of any request for bond, and has been detained by ICE for a relatively short period of time.

The Court concludes that Petitioner’s current detention under the mandatory detention framework set forth in § 1225(b)(2)(A) violates Petitioner’s Fifth Amendment due process rights for the reasons set forth in the Court’s constitutional analysis in each of the following cases: 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).

VI. 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.

VII. Proper Respondents Respondents argue that the Detroit ICE Field Office Director is the only proper Respondent in this action. The Court concludes that the Detroit ICE Field Office Director is not the only proper Respondent for the reasons set forth in the Court’s analysis in each of the following cases: cf. 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). The Court will retain the Department of Homeland Security and the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement as Respondents.

Conclusion For the reasons discussed above, the Court will enter a judgment conditionally granting Petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (ECF No. 1.) The Court will order Respondents to provide Petitioner with a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within five business days of the date of this Court’s opinion and judgment 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.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 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: March 13, 2026 /s/ Robert J. Jonker Robert J. Jonker 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.