Waziri v. Raycraft et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
______
ATIQULLAH WAZIRI,
Petitioner,
v.
KEVIN RAYCRAFT et al.,
Respondents.
____________________________/
Case No. 1:26-cv-1135
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 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, he 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 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 ordering Respondents to
release Petitioner. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.19.) In an order entered on April 9, 2026, the Court
directed Respondents to show cause, within three business days, why the writ of habeas corpus
should not be granted. (Order, ECF No. 3.) Respondents filed their response and a recording of the
February 6, 2026 bond hearing on April 14, 2026, (Resp., ECF No. 4; Recording of Feb. 6, 2026
Case 1:26-cv-01135-JMB-SJB ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 05/04/26 Page 1
of 4

2
Bond Hearing, filed on Apr. 14, 2026), and Petitioner filed his reply on April 15, 2026, (ECF
No. 5).
II. 	Factual Background
Petitioner is a citizen of Afghanistan who entered the United States in 2024. (Pet., ECF
No. 1, PageID.7.) On December 23, 2025, Petitioner was arrested by ICE in Detroit.
On January 10, 2025, Petitioner filed a § 2241 petition challenging his initial detention
without a bond hearing in Waziri v. Raycraft (Waziri I), No. 1:26-cv-98 (W.D. Mich.). In Waziri 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., Waziri I, (W.D. Mich. Jan.
30, 2026), (ECF Nos. 6, 7).
On February 6, 2026, Petitioner received a bond hearing pursuant to § 1226(a). (Pet., ECF
No. 1, PageID.3.) At the conclusion of the hearing, the Immigration Judge (IJ) denied Petitioner’s
request for bond because Petitioner “did not establish he is not a flight risk.” (Order of the IJ, ECF
No. 1-2, PageID.25.)
III. 	Analysis
Respondents argue that the Court should deny Petitioner’s § 2241 petition due to a lack of
jurisdiction under § 1226(e) and Petitioner’s failure to exhaust Petitioner’s administrative
remedies, as well as on the merits. The Court has fully addressed these issues and Respondents’
arguments in Soto-Medina v. Lynch, No. 1:25-cv-1704, --- F. Supp. 3d ----, 2026 WL 161002, at
*2 (W.D. Mich. Jan. 21, 2026).
Respondents also argue that his Court lacks jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g), and
8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(9). The Court concludes that § 1252(g) and § 1252(b)(9) do not preclude the
Case 1:26-cv-01135-JMB-SJB ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 05/04/26 Page 2
of 4

3
Court’s review of Petitioner’s § 2241 petition for the reasons set forth in the Court’s jurisdiction
analysis in each of the following cases: Avila Maltos v. Noem, No. 1:25-cv-1299, 2025 WL
3550605, at *2–3 (W.D. Mich. Dec. 11, 2025); Aguilar-Duran v. Unknown Party, No. 1:25-cv-
1418, 2025 WL 3458572, at *2–3 (W.D. Mich. Dec. 2, 2025); Flores Garcia v. Noem, No. 1:25-
cv-1387, 2025 WL 3458531, at *2–3 (W.D. Mich. Dec. 2, 2025); Hernandez Lopez v. Raycraft,
No. 1:25-cv-1412, 2025 WL 3290655, at *2–3 (W.D. Mich. Nov. 26, 2025).
Therefore, for the reasons set forth in Soto-Medina, the Court will conditionally grant
Petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
IV. 	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.
V. 	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
Case 1:26-cv-01135-JMB-SJB ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 05/04/26 Page 3
of 4

4
for the Department 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
The Court will order Respondents to provide Petitioner with an individualized bond
hearing before an 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. 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: 	May 4, 2026 	/s/ Jane M. Beckering
Jane M. Beckering
United States District Judge
Case 1:26-cv-01135-JMB-SJB ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 05/04/26 Page 4
of 4