Federal Judge Rules Mandatory Immigration Detention Violates Due Process for Long-Resident Noncitizen Arrested Inside the U.S.

Jose Alexis Hernandez Mancia, a native and citizen of El Salvador who, according to charging documents and his own declaration, entered the United States about ten years ago without inspection, was arrested by ICE agents in Columbus, Ohio, on November 7, 2025, while on his way to work. DHS charged him with inadmissibility under INA § 212(a)(6)(A)(i) and detained him at the North Lake Processing Center in Baldwin, Michigan. His wife, Emely Recinos Garcia, filed a pro se habeas petition on his behalf in the Western District of Michigan.

Judge Jane M. Beckering conditionally granted the petition on April 17, 2026. The central statutory dispute was whether Hernandez Mancia's detention was governed by INA § 1225(b)(2)(A) — the mandatory-detention provision the government invoked — or by § 1226(a), which permits individualized bond hearings. The court held that § 1226(a) governs noncitizens who have resided in the United States and were already present in the country when apprehended, and that applying the mandatory-detention framework of § 1225(b)(2)(A) to Hernandez Mancia violated his Fifth Amendment due process rights.

The ruling is part of a series of decisions from the same court. Judge Beckering incorporated by reference her exhaustion, statutory, constitutional, and proper-respondents analyses from four earlier Western District of Michigan cases decided 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 Security, No. 1:25-cv-1578.

The government argued that Hernandez Mancia had received notice of charges, had access to counsel, could request hearings before an immigration judge, had the right to appeal any denial of bond, and had been detained for a relatively short period — none of which the court held sufficient to satisfy due process under the mandatory-detention framework. The government also pressed a prudential exhaustion defense, pointing to Hernandez Mancia's two withdrawn bond-hearing motions in Detroit Immigration Court; the court declined to enforce exhaustion and held waiver appropriate in the alternative.

The court acknowledged two recent circuit decisions reaching different conclusions — 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 rulings did not change its analysis.

Respondents are ordered to provide a bond hearing under § 1226(a) within five business days, with notice to the parties no later than 24 hours before the hearing, or to release Hernandez Mancia immediately. A compliance status report is due within six business days. Hernandez Mancia's individual removal hearing in Detroit Immigration Court remains scheduled for May 13, 2026.