Colley v. Raycraft, et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
______
ALASAN COLLEY,
Petitioner,
v.
KEVIN RAYCRAFT et al.,
Respondents.
____________________________/
Case No. 1:26-cv-0565
Honorable Robert J. Jonker
OPINION
Petitioner, a United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detainee currently
detained at the Calhoun County Jail in Battle Creek, 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.
BACKGROUND
Petitioner is a native and citizen of Gambia. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.2.) He entered the
United States in 2022 without inspection. (Id.) He was subsequently encountered and placed in
removal proceedings on July 12, 2022. (Id.). He then applied for asylum. (Id. at PageID.3.)
On August 7, 2025, an Immigration Judge (IJ) denied all forms of relief and ordered
Petitioner removed to Gambia. (Id.). Petitioner has appealed that decision to Board of
Immigration Appeals (BIA). (Id.) Petitioner’s appeal remains pending at this time.1 (Id.)
1 Respondents do not contend that Petitioner is subject to a final order of removal and, with it, mandatory
detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(2)(A). For the purposes of § 1231(a), a removal order “shall become final upon
the earlier of (i) a determination by the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming such an order; or (ii) the expiration
Case 1:26-cv-00565-RJJ-PJG ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/06/26 Page 1
of 6

2
On January 26, 2026, Petitioner was driving to the Intensive Supervision Appearance
Office in Detroit to request assistance installing the ICE mobile check-in app on his new phone.
(Id.). While attempting to locate the office, Petitioner made a wrong turn and ended up in the
Windsor Tunnel, heading toward the border separating the United States from Canada. (Resp.,
ECF No. 5, PageID.97.) Prior to reaching the border, Petitioner encountered ICE agents and asked
them for help.2 (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.10; Resp., ECF No. 5, PageID.97.) He explained that
he was trying to reach the ICE office in Detroit. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.10.) ICE agents brought
Petitioner to the Border Patrol office. (Id.) There, they issued a warrant for his arrest. (Resp.,
ECF No. 5, PageID.97). Petitioner has since been being detained at the Calhoun County Jail in
Battle Creek, Michigan. (Id.).
In Petitioner’s § 2241 petition, Petitioner challenges the lawfulness of his current detention
and asks the Court to, among other things, 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.24–25.)
In an order entered on February 27, 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. 3.) Respondents filed their response on March 20, 2026,
(ECF No. 4), and Petitioner filed his reply on March 26, 2026, (ECF No. 5).
of the period in which the alien is permitted to seek review of such order by the Board of Immigration Appeals.” 8
U.S.C. § 1101(a)(47)(B).
2 Both the petitioner and the respondents agree that Petitioner never crossed the United States border with
Canada. He thus never left the United States, which means that the fact that he was arrested at a Border Patrol station
located along an international border does not affect the legal analysis of whether § 1225 or § 1226 governs his
detention.
Case 1:26-cv-00565-RJJ-PJG ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/06/26 Page 2
of 6

3
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.” 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, 605 U.S. 91,
94 (2025).
DISCUSSION
I. 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 pursue a bond hearing and, if necessary, appeal any unfavorable decision to
the Board of Immigration Appeals.
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.
Case 1:26-cv-00565-RJJ-PJG ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/06/26 Page 3
of 6

4
II. 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
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).3
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 request 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.
3 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, and Avila v. Bondi, No. 25-3248, --- F.4th ----, 2026
WL 819258 (8th Cir. Mar. 25, 2026), which was recently issued by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth
Circuit. At this time, these non-binding cases do not change the Court’s analysis.
Case 1:26-cv-00565-RJJ-PJG ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/06/26 Page 4
of 6

5
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).
III. 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 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.4 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
4 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-00565-RJJ-PJG ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/06/26 Page 5
of 6

6
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: April 6, 2026 /s/ Robert J. Jonker
Robert J. Jonker
United States District Judge
Case 1:26-cv-00565-RJJ-PJG ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/06/26 Page 6
of 6