Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

JACKSONVILLE DIVISION

FREDY RAMIRO DOMINGO ORDONEZ,

Petitioner,

v. Case No. 3:26-cv-1447-MMH-MCR

WARDEN, FLORIDA BAKER

CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, et al.,

Respondents.

___________________________________

ORDER

I. Status

Petitioner Fredy Ramiro Domingo Ordonez, an immigration detainee,

initiated this action by filing a pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc.

1; Petition) on June 1, 2026.1 The Federal Respondents filed a Response to

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 7; Response) with exhibits (Doc. 7-1).

Ordonez filed a Reply (Doc. 9; Reply). This case is ripe for review.

1 Ordonez also filed an Ex Parte Application for Temporary Restraining Order

(Doc. 2). On June 4, 2026, the Court granted in part Ordonez’s request for a temporary

restraining order and enjoined Respondents from removing him from the Middle

District of Florida through June 18, 2026. See Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. 5).

The Court also notified the parties that it would consolidate consideration of the

construed request for a preliminary injunction with an adjudication of the Petition

on the merits and set a briefing schedule. See id.

II. Ordonez’s Petition

Ordonez, a citizen of Guatemala, entered the United States in August

2021. Petition at 4. Ordonez asserts that he has a pending application for

asylum, and based on that application, he was granted an employment

authorization document valid until June 23, 2029. Id. at 5. On May 14, 2026,

following a traffic stop, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement

detained Ordonez. Id. The crux of Ordonez’s Petition is that he is not subject

to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2), and therefore, he is

entitled to a bond hearing. See id. at 7–8. As relief, he requests, inter alia,

immediate release. Id. at 9

III. Exhaustion

The Federal Respondents recognize that Ordonez “should” receive an

individualized bond hearing based on the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals’

recent decision in Hernandez Alvarez v. Warden, Federal Detention Center

Miami, 175 F.4th 1258 (11th Cir. 2026) (concluding that Ҥ 1225 applies to

arriving aliens seeking entry at the border, whereas § 1226 applies to aliens

unlawfully in the interior”). Response at 1. Nevertheless, the Federal

Respondents argue that Ordonez has not exhausted his administrative

remedies, and therefore, they ask the Court to dismiss Ordonez’s Petition. Id.

2

The Court turns first to the question of exhaustion. A petitioner must

exhaust all available administrative remedies before filing a § 2241 petition in

federal court. See Santiago-Lugo v. Warden, 785 F.3d 467, 475 (11th Cir. 2015).

While exhaustion is not a jurisdictional requirement, a federal court may not

disregard a failure to exhaust and grant relief on the merits if the respondent

properly asserts the defense. Id. at 474–75.

It appears Ordonez has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies

because he has not requested a bond redetermination before an immigration

judge. Contrary to the context in which the Court previously excused a failure

to exhaust by requesting a bond redetermination, before Ordonez filed the

Petition, the Eleventh Circuit concluded that noncitizens detained within the

interior of the United States, such as Ordonez, are entitled to a bond hearing.

And the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) “is obliged to apply the precedent

of the relevant court of appeals in cases arising within the associated circuit—

even if the Attorney General or the BIA itself disagrees with that precedent.”

Garcia v. Garland, 73 F.4th 219, 230 n.7 (4th Cir. 2023); see also Stevens v.

Osuna, 877 F.3d 1293, 1303 (11th Cir. 2017) (“Immigration Judges are also

bound both by agency precedent and by precedent established by the federal

appellate courts.” (citation omitted)). As such, the Court is no longer

persuaded, without more, that a request for a bond redetermination would be

3

futile or “predetermined.” Therefore, the Petition is due to be dismissed

without prejudice for failure to exhaust.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. Ordonez’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) is

DISMISSED without prejudice.

2. Respondent Warden’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 8) is DENIED as

moot.

3. The Clerk is directed to terminate any motions, enter judgment

dismissing the Petition, and close the file.

DONE AND ORDERED at Jacksonville, Florida, this 22nd day of June,

2026.

United States District Judge

Jax-9 6/17

C:

Fredy Ramiro Domingo Ordonez, A220237506

Counsel of Record