Manzanilla Godoy v. Raycraft et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
______
JESUS MANUEL MANZANILLA
GODOY,
Petitioner,
v.
KEVIN RAYCRAFT et al.,
Respondents.
____________________________/
Case No. 1:26-cv-991
Honorable Robert J. Jonker
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 a 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. Procedural History
In Petitioner’s § 2241 petition, Petitioner challenges the lawfulness of his current detention
and asks the Court to, inter alia, assume jurisdiction over this matter and issue a writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 ordering Respondents to release Petitioner. (Pet., ECF No. 1,
PageID.8.)
In an order entered on March 26, 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-00991-RJJ-SJB ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/17/26 Page 1
of 6

2
should not be granted. (Order, ECF No. 3.) Respondents filed their response on March 30, 2026,
(ECF No. 4), and Petitioner filed his reply on April 2, 2026, (ECF No. 5).
II. Factual Background
Petitioner is a native and citizen of Venezuela. (Notice to Appear (NTA), ECF No. 4-1,
PageID.22.) Petitioner entered the United States on or about August 8, 2023, at or near Eagle Pass,
Texas, without inspection. (Id.; 2023 Form I-213, ECF No. 4-2, PageID.68.) On August 8, 2023,
local police officers in Maverick County, Texas, arrested Petitioner and Petitioner was charged
with criminal trespass. (2023 Form I-213, ECF No. 4-2. PageID.67.) On August 31, 2023,
Petitioner was transferred to ICE custody. (Id.)
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) initially placed Petitioner in expedited
removal proceedings. (Id., PageID.68; Notice and Order of Expedited Removal, ECF No. 4-1,
PageID.30.) Thereafter, DHS found that Petitioner had demonstrated a credible fear of persecution
or torture. (Record of Determination, ECF No. 4-1, PageID.39, 40; NTA, ECF No. 4-1,
PageID.22.) DHS then 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 travel document],” which placed Petitioner in standard,
non-expedited removal proceedings under § 240 of the INA. (NTA, ECF No. 4-1, PageID.22.) On
September 25, 2023, Petitioner was paroled into the United States under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5)(A),
for a period of one year. (Interim Notice Authorizing Parole, ECF No. 4-3, PageID.71.)
On February 17, 2026, ICE agents encountered and arrested Petitioner while Petitioner was
walking to work. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.1.) Petitioner was scheduled for a master calendar
Case 1:26-cv-00991-RJJ-SJB ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/17/26 Page 2
of 6

3
hearing on April 3, 2026, in the Detroit Immigration Court.1 (Notice of Internet-Based Hearing,
ECF No. 4-5, PageID.76.)
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. Merits Discussion
A. Statutory Basis for Petitioner’s Detention
Respondents contend that Petitioner is properly detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b).2 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,
1 The parties do not provide any other information about the April 3, 2026, hearing.
2 To the extent that Respondents argue that Petitioner is detained under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1225(b)(1)(B)(ii), which applies to noncitizens in expedited removal proceedings, that is
unpersuasive. Petitioner was initially placed in expedited removal proceedings but was later placed
in removal proceedings under § 240 of the INA (i.e., standard, non-expedited removal
proceedings). (See NTA, ECF No. 4-1, PageID.22.) Additionally, to the extent that Respondents
contend that Petitioner is detained pursuant to § 1225(b)(1)(B)(iii)(IV), that is also without merit.
That clause is only applicable to noncitizens who have not been found to have a credible fear of
persecution. (See Record of Determination, ECF No. 4-1, PageID.39, 40; NTA, ECF No. 4-1,
PageID.22 (indicating that Petitioner was determined to have a credible fear of torture).)
Case 1:26-cv-00991-RJJ-SJB ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/17/26 Page 3
of 6

4
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, 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).3
B. Fifth Amendment Due Process Considerations
Petitioner 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, may attend hearings with an immigration judge, and
has an appeal pending with the Board of Immigration Appeals.
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).
V. 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.
3 The Court is aware of Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, 166 F.4th 494 (5th Cir. 2026), which was
recently issued by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, and Avila v. Bondi,
No. 25-3248, --- F.4th ----, 2026 WL 819258 (8th Cir. Mar. 25, 2026), which was recently issued
by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. At this time, these non-binding cases
do not change the Court’s analysis.
Case 1:26-cv-00991-RJJ-SJB ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/17/26 Page 4
of 6

5
VI. Proper Respondents
Respondents argue that the Detroit ICE Field Office Director is the only proper Respondent
in this action, and they seek the dismissal of all of the other named Respondents. The Court
concludes that the ICE Detroit Field Office Director is not the only proper Respondent for 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 ICE Detroit 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.
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 with notice to the Parties
as soon as practicable, no later than 24 hours prior to the scheduled hearing, or, in the alternative,
Case 1:26-cv-00991-RJJ-SJB ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/17/26 Page 5
of 6

6
immediately release Petitioner from custody.4 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. Further, the Court will
dismiss the United States Attorney General as a Respondent.
Dated: April 17, 2026 /s/ Robert J. Jonker
Robert J. Jonker
United States District Judge
4 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 or only release.
Case 1:26-cv-00991-RJJ-SJB ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/17/26 Page 6
of 6