Xiaoli Liu, a Chinese national who entered the United States without inspection near Tecate, California on July 10, 2023, was arrested by a Border Patrol agent that same day, then released on his own recognizance in accordance with § 1226 of the Immigration and Nationality Act while his asylum application remained pending. On November 29, 2025, ICE rearrested him following a local law enforcement arrest. The Detroit Immigration Court denied his request for a custody redetermination hearing on January 20, 2026, citing a lack of jurisdiction, leaving Liu detained at the Calhoun County Correctional Facility in Battle Creek, Michigan.
Liu filed a counseled habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, arguing that the government was wrongly treating him as subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2) — a provision governing arriving aliens — rather than the discretionary detention framework of § 1226(a), which allows for bond hearings.
Chief U.S. District Judge Hala Y. Jarbou conditionally granted the petition on April 17, 2026. On the statutory question, the court held that § 1226(a), not § 1225(b)(2)(A), governs noncitizens who have resided in the United States and were already within the country when apprehended. On the constitutional question, the court held that detaining Liu under the mandatory detention framework of § 1225(b)(2)(A) violates his Fifth Amendment due process rights.
The government argued that Liu received notice of charges, has access to counsel, may attend immigration hearings, has the right to appeal any bond denial, and has been detained for a relatively short period. The court concluded that detention nonetheless violates due process, incorporating its constitutional analysis from four prior decisions issued December 12, 2025: Antele Cobix v. Raycraft, No. 1:25-cv-1669; Candela Bastidas v. Noem, No. 1:25-cv-1528; Acuna Sanchez v. Noem, No. 1:25-cv-1442; and Penagos Robles v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec., No. 1:25-cv-1578.
The court also declined to enforce prudential exhaustion, again incorporating its reasoning from those four prior cases. The government had argued Liu should first pursue a bond hearing through the immigration court system and appeal any adverse ruling to the Board of Immigration Appeals before seeking federal habeas relief.
The court acknowledged two recent circuit decisions — Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, 166 F.4th 494 (5th Cir. 2026), and Avila v. Bondi, No. 25-3248 (8th Cir. Mar. 25, 2026) — but held that those non-binding cases do not change its analysis.
The remedy is a bond hearing under § 1226(a) within five business days, or immediate release. Respondents must file a status report within six business days certifying compliance, including whether a hearing occurred, whether bond was granted or denied, and the conditions or reasons if applicable. The court retained both the ICE Detroit Field Office Director and the Secretary for the Department of Homeland Security as respondents to ensure that its orders will bind at least one respondent with authority to act in the event Liu is transferred out of the Western District of Michigan.