Pena-Mosquera v. Raycraft et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
______
JEFERSON ISAAC PENA-MOSQUERA,
Petitioner,
v.
KEVIN RAYCRAFT et al.,
Respondents.
____________________________/
Case No. 1:26-cv-500
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 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.
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 or
provide Petitioner with a bond hearing where the government bears the burden of proof by clear
and convincing evidence that Petitioner is a flight risk or danger to the community. (Pet., ECF
No. 1, PageID.7–8.)
In an Order entered on February 18, 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-00500-JMB-MV ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/27/26 Page 1
of 3

2
should not be granted. (Order, ECF No. 4.) Respondents filed their response on February 23, 2026
(ECF No. 5), and Petitioner filed his reply later that same day (ECF No. 6).
II. 	Relevant Factual Background
Petitioner is a citizen of Venezuela who entered the United States in 2023. See Op., Pena-
Mosquera v. Raycraft (Pena-Mosquera I), No. 1:26-cv-122 (W.D. Mich. Feb. 3, 2026), (ECF
No. 7, PageID.92). “On December 19, 2025, ICE agents encountered and arrested Petitioner while
Petitioner was at Home Depot.” Id.
On January 13, 2026, Petitioner filed a § 2241 petition challenging his initial detention
without a bond hearing in Pena-Mosquera I, No. 1:26-cv-122 (W.D. Mich.). In Pena-Mosquera 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., Pena-Mosquera I, (W.D.
Mich. Jan. 20, 2026), (ECF Nos. 7, 8).
On February 10, 2026, Petitioner received a bond hearing pursuant to § 1226(a). (Pet., ECF
No. 1, PageID.2; Order Immigration Judge, ECF No. 1-2.) At the conclusion of the hearing, the
Immigration Judge denied Petitioner’s request for bond because Petitioner “has not established he
is not a flight risk.” (Immigration Judge Order, ECF No. 1-2, PageID.11.)
III. 	Discussion
Respondents argue that the Court should deny Petitioner’s § 2241 petition due to a lack of
jurisdiction 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 et al., No. 1:25-cv-1704 (W.D. Mich. Jan. 21, 2026). Therefore, for the reasons set forth
Case 1:26-cv-00500-JMB-MV ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/27/26 Page 2
of 3

3
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.
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 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.
Dated:
Jane M. Beckering
United States District Judge
/s/ Jane M. Beckering	February 27, 2026
Case 1:26-cv-00500-JMB-MV ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/27/26 Page 3
of 3