Abdallahi v. Raycraft et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
______
BAHA ABDALLAHI,
Petitioner,
v.
KEVIN RAYCRAFT et al.,
Respondents.
____________________________/
Case No. 1:26-cv-456
Honorable Paul L. Maloney
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, accept jurisdiction over this action and issue a writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 ordering Respondents to release Petitioner. (Pet., ECF No. 1,
PageID.33–34.)
In an order entered on February 11, 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-00456-PLM-RSK ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 03/04/26 Page 1
of 7

2
should not be granted. (Order, ECF No. 3.) Respondents filed their response on February 17, 2026,
(ECF No. 4), and Petitioner filed his reply on February 18, 2026, (ECF No. 5).
II. 	Factual Background
Petitioner is a native and citizen of Mauritania. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.8; Notice to
Appear (NTA), ECF No. 4-3, PageID.63.) Petitioner entered the United States in late August of
2024 without inspection. (NTA, ECF No. 4-3, PageID.63.) After Petitioner entered the United
States, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) agents encountered Petitioner, and at that time,
Petitioner was issued a Form I-860, Notice and Order of Expedited Removal. (Form I-860, ECF
No. 4-1.) Petitioner claimed a fear of returning to Mauritania, which the United States Citizenship
and Immigration Services determined was credible. (See 2026 Form I-213, ECF No. 4-2.) On
September 11, 2024, Petitioner was issued 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],” and placed in standard, non-expedited removal
proceedings. (NTA, ECF No. 4-3, PageID.63.) Thereafter, on September 13, 2024, DHS paroled
Petitioner into the United States for a period of one year. (Parole Letter, ECF No. 4-4.) Petitioner
then filed an asylum application in Immigration Court. (See Order of Immigration Judge, ECF
No. 4-5.)
On January 6, 2026, ICE took Petitioner into custody when he reported for a scheduled
ICE check-in appointment. (See Form I-213, ECF No. 4-2, PageID.60.) On that same date, ICE
issued a letter terminating Petitioner’s parole. (Letter, ECF No. 4-6.) On January 13, 2026, the
Batavia, New York, Immigration Court granted Respondents’ motion to pretermit Petitioner’s
Case 1:26-cv-00456-PLM-RSK ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 03/04/26 Page 2
of 7

3
asylum application “because Respondent is subject to the Asylum Cooperative Agreement (ACA)
with Uganda.” (Order of Immigration Judge, ECF No. 4-5, PageID.70.) According to the January
13, 	2026, 	Order 	of 	the 	Immigration 	Judge, 	Petitioner 	“will 	have 	an 	opportunity 	to
express/demonstrate” “a fear of removal to Uganda” at his master hearing, which is scheduled for
March 6, 2026. (Id., PageID.71; Notice of Hearing, ECF No. 4-7.)
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 argue that Petitioner is subject to mandatory detention because he is subject
to expedited removal under 8 U.S.C. §1225(b)(1). (See Resp., ECF No. 4, PageID.50.)
“The Arriving Aliens Provision imposes expedited removal and detention on any
noncitizen who is inadmissible due to lack of entry documents or fraud or willful misrepresentation
on an admission application and ‘who is arriving in the United States.’” Rodriguez-Acurio v.
Almodovar, No. 2:25-cv-6065 (NJC), 2025 WL 3314420, at *19 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 28, 2025)
(quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1)(A)(i)). However, for the same reasons set forth in detail in
Hernandez Montiel v. Raycraft, No. 1:25-cv-1610 (W.D. Mich. Jan. 6, 2026), Petitioner is not an
“arriving alien” subject to mandatory detention and expedited removal. Additionally, because
Case 1:26-cv-00456-PLM-RSK ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 03/04/26 Page 3
of 7

4
Respondents paroled Petitioner into the United States, he is not subject to expedited removal, as
set forth in 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1)(A)(iii)(II) (providing that a noncitizen, “who has not been
admitted or paroled into the United States, and who has not affirmatively shown, to the satisfaction
of an immigration officer, that the alien has been physically present in the United States
continuously for the 2-year period immediately prior to the date of the determination of
inadmissibility” may be subject to expedited removal (emphasis added)). Moreover, the issuance
of the September 11, 2024, NTA following Petitioner’s credible fear determination removed
Petitioner from expedited removal proceedings and placed him in standard, non-expedited removal
proceedings in Immigration Court. (See NTA, ECF No. 4-3, PageID.63.) Indeed, Petitioner has
another hearing scheduled in Immigration Court on March 6, 2026. (Notice of Hearing, ECF
No. 4-7.) Accordingly, Petitioner’s detention commencing on January 6, 2026, is not governed by
§ 1225(b)(1).
The Court further 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, 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).1
1 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. At this time, this non-
binding case does not change the Court’s analysis.
Case 1:26-cv-00456-PLM-RSK ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 03/04/26 Page 4
of 7

5
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, may 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 a
relatively short period of time.
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.
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 the other named Respondents. The Court concludes
that the Detroit ICE 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,
Case 1:26-cv-00456-PLM-RSK ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 03/04/26 Page 5
of 7

6
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 Detroit ICE Field Office Director and the United
States Secretary 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
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,
immediately release Petitioner from custody.2 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
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 or only release.
Case 1:26-cv-00456-PLM-RSK ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 03/04/26 Page 6
of 7

7
dismiss the United States Department of Homeland Security, the United States Attorney General,
and the Executive Office for Immigration Review as Respondents.
Dated: 	March 4, 2026 	/s/ Paul L. Maloney
Paul L. Maloney
United States District Judge
Case 1:26-cv-00456-PLM-RSK ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 03/04/26 Page 7
of 7