Hernandez Lupercio v. Raycraft, et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
______
JOSE PEDRO HERNANDEZ LUPERCIO,
Petitioner,
v.
KEVIN RAYCRAFT et al.,
Respondents.
____________________________/
Case No. 1:26-cv-259
Honorable Paul L. Maloney
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 counseled petition for 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. 	Relevant Procedural History
Petitioner initiated this action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan. (Pet., ECF No. 1.) In Petitioner’s § 2241 petition, Petitioner challenges the lawfulness
of his current detention and asks the Court to, inter alia, accept jurisdiction over this action and
issue a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 ordering Respondents to release
Petitioner or to conduct a bond hearing. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.23–24.)
In an order entered on December 8, 2025, the Eastern District of Michigan ordered
Respondents to respond to the petition by December 15, 2025. (ECF No. 4.) In a “Stipulation and
Case 1:26-cv-00259-PLM-SJB ECF No. 12, PageID.<pageID> Filed 01/28/26 Page 1
of 7

2
Order Requiring Response” entered on January 15, 2025, the parties stipulated that “Respondents
may not have been served prior to [December 15, 2025]. Indeed, no proof of service was filed by
Petitioner. Nonetheless, an attorney for Respondents filed an appearance on January 13, 2026,”
and the Court ordered that Respondents now respond to the petition by January 20, 2026. (ECF
No. 7.) The Court further ordered Petitioner to file any reply within three business days of
Respondents’ response. (Id.)
On January 20, 2026, Respondents filed their response to the petition. (ECF No. 8.) On
January 23, 2026, the Eastern District of Michigan transferred the action to this Court. (ECF
No. 9.) The case was opened in this Court on January 26, 2026. Petitioner did not file a reply.
II. 	Factual Background
Petitioner is a native and citizen of Mexico. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.6; Notice to Appear
(NTA), ECF No. 8-2, PageID.130.) Petitioner entered the United States in 1995 without inspection.
(Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.7; NTA, ECF No. 8-2, PageID.130.) Prior to Petitioner’s present
detention, he resided in Michigan. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.8.) Petitioner has three United States
citizen children, one of whom is a minor. (Id.)
On October 17, 2025, “Petitioner was stopped by agents of the Department of Natural
Resources (DNR) . . . while fishing with his sons in the Manistee River.” (Id.) “When [Petitioner]
could not prove to the DNR agents that he was legally present in the United States,” the DNR
agents contacted ICE, and ICE took Petitioner into custody. (Id.) At that time, ICE issued Petitioner
a Form I-862, NTA, charging Petitioner with inadmissibility under §§ 212(a)(6)(A)(i) and
212(a)(7)(A)(i)(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 arrived in the
United States at any time or place other than as designated by the Attorney General,” and “who,
at the time of application for admission, is not in possession of a valid unexpired [immigration or
Case 1:26-cv-00259-PLM-SJB ECF No. 12, PageID.<pageID> Filed 01/28/26 Page 2
of 7

3
travel document].” (NTA, ECF No. 8-2, PageID.130, 133.) Respondents state that Petitioner “has
been found removable in his immigration proceedings, but, on December 22, 2025, he filed an
application for cancellation of removal.”1 (Resp., ECF No. 8, PageID.104 (citing Ex. 2).) Petitioner
had a master calendar hearing on January 16, 2026, in the Detroit Immigration Court. (Notice of
In-Person Hearing, ECF No. 8-4, PageID.158.) Petitioner is scheduled for an individual hearing
regarding his application for cancellation of removal on March 11, 2026, in the Detroit
Immigration Court. (Notice In-Person Hearing, ECF No. 8-5, PageID.160; Resp., ECF No. 8,
PageID.104.)
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.
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 (BIA). However, Respondents state that “the agency
acknowledges that petitioner is ultimately unlikely to obtain the relief he seeks through the
1 Respondents do not contend that Petitioner has an order of removal that is administratively final.
Case 1:26-cv-00259-PLM-SJB ECF No. 12, PageID.<pageID> Filed 01/28/26 Page 3
of 7

4
administrative process based on a recent decision by the [BIA] in Matter of Yajure Hurtado.”
(Resp., ECF No. 8, PageID.108.)
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
Petitioner contends that Respondents have violated the INA by concluding that Petitioner
is detained pursuant to the mandatory detention provisions set forth in 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2).
Respondents, 	however, 	contend 	that 	Petitioner 	meets 	every 	element 	for 	detention 	under
§ 1225(b)(2), and that the statute’s structure and history support Respondents’ interpretation.
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,
Case 1:26-cv-00259-PLM-SJB ECF No. 12, PageID.<pageID> Filed 01/28/26 Page 4
of 7

5
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).
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, is scheduled to 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 short period 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 Warden of North Lake Processing Center is the only proper
Respondent, or alternatively, they argue that the Detroit ICE Field Office Director is the only
proper Respondent in this action, and they seek the dismissal of the other named Respondents. The
Court concludes that the Detroit ICE Field Office Director is not the only proper Respondent for
Case 1:26-cv-00259-PLM-SJB ECF No. 12, PageID.<pageID> Filed 01/28/26 Page 5
of 7

6
the reasons set forth in the Court’s analysis of the same argument in each of the following cases:
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).
To ensure that this Court’s orders regarding a hearing or release will bind at least one
Respondent with authority to act in the event that Petitioner is transferred out of the Western
District of Michigan, the Court will retain the Detroit ICE Field Office Director and the United
States Secretary of Homeland Security as Respondents. The Court will dismiss the United States
Department of Homeland Security, the United States Attorney General, and the Executive Office
for Immigration Review 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 or, in the alternative,
immediately release Petitioner from custody.2 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
2 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.
Case 1:26-cv-00259-PLM-SJB ECF No. 12, PageID.<pageID> Filed 01/28/26 Page 6
of 7

7
conditions of the bond, or if bond was denied, the reasons for the denial. Further, the Court will
dismiss the United States Department of Homeland Security, the United States Attorney General,
and the Executive Office for Immigration Review as Respondents.
Dated: 	January 28, 2026 	/s/ Paul L. Maloney
Paul L. Maloney
United States District Judge
Case 1:26-cv-00259-PLM-SJB ECF No. 12, PageID.<pageID> Filed 01/28/26 Page 7
of 7