Alvarez v. Raycraft et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
______
ALFONSO ALVAREZ,
Petitioner,
v.
KEVIN RAYCRAFT et al.,
Respondents.
____________________________/
Case No. 1:26-cv-877
Honorable Jane M. Beckering
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.
I. 	Procedural History
In Petitioner’s § 2241 petition, Petitioner challenges the constitutionality of his current
detention following an order issued by the Detroit Immigration Court denying him bond, and asks
the Court to, inter alia, issue a writ of habeas corpus ordering Respondents to release Petitioner or
provide Petitioner with a bond hearing where the government bears the burden of proof by clear
and convincing evidence that Petitioner is a flight risk or danger to the community. (Pet., ECF
No. 1, PageID.7.)
In an order entered on March 19, 2026, the Court directed Respondents to show cause,
within three business days, why the writ of habeas corpus and other relief requested by Petitioner
Case 1:26-cv-00877-JMB-PJG ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/16/26 Page 1
of 5

2
should not be granted. (Order, ECF No. 4.) Respondents filed their response and a recording of the
March 13, 2026, bond hearing on March 24, 2026. (Resp., ECF No. 5; Recording of Mar. 13, 2026,
Bond Hearing, filed on Mar. 24, 2026.) Petitioner filed his reply on March 26, 2026, (ECF No. 6.).
II. 	Relevant Factual Background
Petitioner is a citizen of Colombia who entered the United States in 2023. (Pet., ECF No. 1,
PageID.4–5.) On December 27, 2025, Petitioner was arrested by ICE in Pompano Beach, Florida.
(Id., PageID.4.)
On December 29, 2025, Petitioner filed a § 2241 petition challenging his initial detention
without a bond hearing in Alvarez v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Security (Alvarez I), No. 1:26-cv-
618 (W.D. Mich.). In Alvarez I, the Court conditionally granted Petitioner’s petition for a writ of
habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, ordering Respondents to provide Petitioner with a
bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within five business days of the date of the Court’s Opinion
and Judgment or, in the alternative, immediately release Petitioner from custody. Op. & Jud.,
Alvarez I, (W.D. Mich. Mar. 9, 2026), (ECF Nos. 10, 11.).
On March 13, 2026, Petitioner received a bond hearing pursuant to § 1226(a). (Pet., ECF
No. 1, PageID.5.) At that hearing, Petitioner argued that he was not a danger to the community or
a flight risk because he had no criminal record, was employed, had started his own welding and
construction business, had a sponsor, and had a pending asylum application. (Id., PageID.4–5;
Recording of Mar. 13, 2026, Bond Hearing at 1:39–4:42, 7:40–9:02, filed on Mar. 24, 2026.)
Respondents argued that Petitioner was a flight risk as he did not have a stable address and that
Petitioner and his sponsor did not live in the same city. (Recording of Mar. 13, 2026, Bond Hearing
at 4:43–7:18, filed on Mar. 24, 2026.) At the conclusion of the March 13, 2026, hearing, in a
written order, the Immigration Judge denied Petitioner’s request for bond, stating:
Case 1:26-cv-00877-JMB-PJG ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/16/26 Page 2
of 5

3
An Immigration Judge can properly deny bond based on flight risk where the
respondent recently arrived in the United States, has insufficient family or
community ties to the country, no stable employment, no prior immigration status,
and no probable path to obtaining lawful status, despite a pending asylum
application and purported support from friends. Respondent’s likelihood of success
in being granted asylum or protection is a factor to be considered by this Court. The
Respondent did not demonstrate a sufficient likelihood that he would be granted
asylum.
Respondent entered the United States without permission or authorization. He has
been present for a short period of time. Respondent has not maintained a long-term
stable residence as he has lived in Colorado and Florida with multiple addresses in
Florida. Respondent has no immediate family in the United States. In addition,
Respondent's potential sponsor does not live in the same city as Respondent, and
he too does not have a stable address based on the evidence presented to this Court.
The evidence before this Court indicates Respondent does not have a sufficient
likelihood of success on the merits of any application and likely is subject to
circumvention of lawful pathways as to his application for asylum.
The Court denies Respondent's request for a change in custody status.
(Immigration Judge Order, ECF No. 1-1, PageID.11.)
III. 	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-
Case 1:26-cv-00877-JMB-PJG ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/16/26 Page 3
of 5

4
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.
IV. 	Discussion
In Petitioner’s § 2241 petition, Petitioner argues that the Immigration Judge did not apply
the constitutionally required burden of proof at Petitioner’s § 1226(a) bond hearing on March 13,
2026. Specifically, Petitioner argues that the Immigration Judge failed to require the government
to demonstrate dangerousness or flight risk by clear and convincing evidence. See Soto-Medina v.
Lynch, No. 1:25-cv-1704, --- F. Supp. 3d ----, 2026 WL 161002, at *2 (W.D. Mich. Jan. 21, 2026)
(addressing the constitutionally required burden of proof).
Based on the record before the Court at this time, including the recording of the § 1226(a)
bond hearing, the Immigration Judge applied a preponderance of the evidence standard to
Respondents’ evidence. As noted above, Respondents must meet their evidentiary burden by clear
and convincing evidence to demonstrate dangerousness or a flight risk. Soto-Medina, 2026 WL
161002, at *2. Under these circumstances, the Court will grant Petitioner’s § 2241 petition.
V. 	Proper Respondents
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 Secretary
for the Department of Homeland Security as Respondents. The Court will dismiss the United States
Attorney General as a Respondent in this matter.
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
Case 1:26-cv-00877-JMB-PJG ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/16/26 Page 4
of 5

5
Court will order Respondents to provide Petitioner with an individualized bond hearing before a
neutral immigration judge, at which time the government will have the burden to demonstrate
dangerousness or flight risk by clear and convincing evidence, within five business days and 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. 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.
The Court will dismiss the United States Attorney General as a Respondent in this matter.
Dated:
Jane M. Beckering
United States District Judge
April 16, 2026 	/s/ Jane M. Beckering
Case 1:26-cv-00877-JMB-PJG ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/16/26 Page 5
of 5