Badjie v. Raycraft, et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
______
FALLEY BADJIE,
Petitioner,
v.
KEVIN RAYCRAFT et al.,
Respondents.
____________________________/
Case No. 1:25-cv-1754
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 on October 24, 2025, 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. 	Procedural History
In Petitioner’s § 2241 petition, Petitioner challenges the lawfulness of his current detention
and asks the Court to, inter alia, declare that Respondents’ actions to detain Petitioner violate the
Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), and
issue a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 either ordering Respondents to release
Petitioner or ordering Respondents to conduct a bond hearing to satisfy the requirements of due
process. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.27.)
Case 1:25-cv-01745-RJJ-SJB ECF No. 14, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/18/25 Page 1
of 7

2
Petitioner originally filed his § 2241 petition in the Eastern District of Michigan.
Respondents filed their response to the petition on November 3, 2025, (ECF No. 7.), and Petitioner
filed his reply on November 5, 2025, (ECF No. 8).On December 9, 2025, the Eastern District of
Michigan transferred the § 2241 petition to this Court for further proceedings. (ECF No. 10.) The
parties have filed a joint stipulation, suggesting that the legal issues set forth in the petition are ripe
for adjudication. (ECF No. 13.)
II. 	Factual Background
Petitioner is not a United States citizen. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.8; Anderson Decl. ¶ 4,
ECF No. 7-2, PageID.117.) 1 He entered the United States in 1998 (id.) “without being inspected
and admitted or paroled” (Anderson Decl. ¶ 3, ECF No. 7-2, PageID.117.) Prior to his detention,
Petitioner resided in Redford, Michigan, with his wife and child, both of whom are United States
citizens. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.11; Sept. 17, 2025, Correspondence, ECF No. 1-4, PageID.37.)
He owns a small home improvement company and serves as the primary financial support for his
family. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.11.)
On May 23, 2009, United States Border Patrol (USBP) agents encountered and arrested
Petitioner in Harlingen, Texas. (Anderson Decl. ¶ 5, ECF No. 7-2, PageID.117.) The USBP agents
issued Petitioner a Form I-862, Notice to Appear, charging Petitioner with inadmissibility under
§ 212(a)(6)(A)(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.” (Id., PageID.117–18.) On
1 The matter of Petitioner’s citizenship is contested by the parties but is not relevant to Petitioner’s
request for habeas relief under § 2241.
Case 1:25-cv-01745-RJJ-SJB ECF No. 14, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/18/25 Page 2
of 7

3
June 2, 2009, Petitioner was released from ICE custody upon payment of a $5,000 bond. (Id. ¶ 7,
PageID.118.) The parties do not contend that Petitioner violated the terms of his 2009 bond.
On February 15, 2010, a Form I-130, Petition for Alien Relative, was filed with the United
States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) on Petitioner’s behalf, which was approved
on April 24, 2012. (Id., ¶¶ 9, 11, PageID.118–19.) On May 7, 2010, Petitioner filed a Form I-589,
Application for Asylum and Withholding of Removal, which remains pending. (Id., ¶ 10,
PageID.119.) An immigration judge administratively closed Petitioner’s immigration case on
March 22, 2016. (Id., ¶ 13.)
On November 8, 2024, a second Form I-130, Petition for Alien Relative, was filed with
USCIS on Petitioner’s behalf, which remains pending. (Id., ¶ 14.)
On July 30, 2025, an immigration judge granted a motion by the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) “to recalendar [Petitioner’s] administratively closed case.” (Id., ¶ 15.) Thereafter,
on August 19, 2025, ICE agents arrested Petitioner. (Id., ¶ 16.) Petitioner was again charged with
inadmissibility under § 212(a)(6)(A)(i) of INA. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.3.) However, an
immigration judge has denied Petitioner’s request for a custody redetermination for lack of
jurisdiction. (Id.; Anderson Decl. ¶ 17, ECF No. 7-2, PageID.120; Sept. 18, 2025, Ord., ECF No.
1-3, PageID.35.)
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-
Case 1:25-cv-01745-RJJ-SJB ECF No. 14, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/18/25 Page 3
of 7

4
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 appeal the decision denying bond to the Board of Immigration Appeals
(BIA).
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
Case 1:25-cv-01745-RJJ-SJB ECF No. 14, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/18/25 Page 4
of 7

5
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,
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 less than three months.
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.
Case 1:25-cv-01745-RJJ-SJB ECF No. 14, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/18/25 Page 5
of 7

6
VII. 	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 and the Executive Office of 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
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 1:25-cv-01745-RJJ-SJB ECF No. 14, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/18/25 Page 6
of 7

7
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 and the Executive Office of Immigration Review as
Respondents.
Dated: 	December 18, 2025 	/s/ Robert J. Jonker
Robert J. Jonker
United States District Judge
Case 1:25-cv-01745-RJJ-SJB ECF No. 14, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/18/25 Page 7
of 7