Murcia Moran v. Unknown Party #1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
______
JAIME ENRIQUE MURCIA MORAN,
Petitioner,
v.
UNKNOWN PARTY #1,
Respondent.
____________________________/
Case No. 1:26-cv-2721
Honorable Jane M. Beckering
OPINION
Petitioner, a United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detainee, initiated
this action by filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Pet., ECF
No. 1.) For the following reasons, the Court will deny Petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 without prejudice.
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.
(Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.9.)
In an order entered on October 7, 2026, the Court directed Respondents to show cause,
within three business days, why the writ of habeas corpus and other relief requested by Petitioner
should not be granted. (Order, ECF No. 5.) Respondents filed their response and a recording of the
June 24, 2026, bond hearing on October 13, 2026. (Resp., ECF No. 6; Recording of Jun. 24, 2026,
Bond Hearing, filed on Oct. 13, 2026.)
Case 1:26-cv-02721-JMB-PJG ECF No. 8, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/15/26 Page 1
of 3

2
II. 	Relevant Factual Background
Petitioner is a citizen of Guatemala who entered the United States in 2011. Op., Murcia
Moran v. Unknown Party (Murcia Moran I), No. 1:26-cv-1742 (W.D. Mich. Jun. 16, 2026) (ECF
No. 8). On August 26, 2025, ICE agents arrested Petitioner. Id.
This is Petitioner’s third § 2241 petition. Id.; Torres-Vasquez v. Raycraft (Torres-Vasquez),
No. 2:25-cv-13571 (E.D. Mich.). On June 24, 2026, Petitioner received a § 1226(a) bond hearing
pursuant to this Court’s Opinion and Judgment in Murcia Moran I. Op. & Jud., Murcia Moran I,
(W.D. Mich. Jun. 16, 2026) (ECF Nos. 8, 9); Bond Order, Murcia Moran I, (W.D. Mich. Jun. 25,
2026) (ECF No. 10-1). At the conclusion of that hearing, in a written order, the Immigration Judge
denied Petitioner’s request for bond, finding that “[t]he Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
has proven by clear and convincing evidence that [Petitioner] is a flight risk.” Bond Order, Murcia
Moran I, (W.D. Mich. Jun. 25, 2026) (ECF No. 10-1).
III. 	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 June 24,
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, 817 F. Supp. 3d 612 (W.D. Mich. 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, there is no indication in the record that the Immigration Judge applied an
unconstitutional burden of proof at the bond hearing. Under these circumstances, the Court will
deny Petitioner’s § 2241 petition without prejudice.
Case 1:26-cv-02721-JMB-PJG ECF No. 8, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/15/26 Page 2
of 3

3
Conclusion
For the reasons discussed above, the Court will enter a judgment denying Petitioner’s
petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 without prejudice.
Dated:
Jane M. Beckering
United States District Judge
October 15, 2026 /s/ Jane M. Beckering
Case 1:26-cv-02721-JMB-PJG ECF No. 8, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/15/26 Page 3
of 3