Singh v. Raycraft et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
______
HARDIAL SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
KEVIN RAYCRAFT et al.,
Respondents.
____________________________/
Case No. 1:26-cv-648
Hon. Hala Y. Jarbou
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 dismiss Petitioner’s petition for a writ
of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 without prejudice.
Discussion
I. Procedural History
In Petitioner’s § 2241 petition, Petitioner challenges the lawfulness of his current detention
and asks the Court to, inter alia, issue a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241
ordering Respondents to release Petitioner. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.31.)
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 4, 2026,
(ECF No. 4), and Petitioner filed his reply on March 8, 2026, (ECF No. 5).
Case 1:26-cv-00648-HYJ-PJG ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 03/23/26 Page 1
of 4

2
II. Factual Background
Petitioner is a native and citizen of India. (Notice to Appear (NTA), ECF No. 4-1,
PageID.53.) Petitioner entered the United States on April 23, 2015, at or near Hidalgo, Texas,
without inspection. (Id.) Thereafter, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) agents encountered
Petitioner, and at that time, DHS issued Petitioner a Form I-862, NTA, charging Petitioner with
inadmissibility under § 212(a)(7)(A)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) because
Petitioner is an immigrant “who, at the time of application for admission, is not in possession of a
valid unexpired [immigration or travel document].” (Id.) In an order entered on July 7, 2015, an
immigration judge ordered that Petitioner be released from custody under a bond of $8,000. (Order
of the Immigration Judge with Respect to Custody, ECF No. 4-2, PageID.56.) Petitioner
subsequently applied for asylum and withholding of removal. (See Oral Decision of the
Immigration Judge, ECF No. 4-4, PageID.62.) Prior to Petitioner’s present detention, he resided
in California. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.9.)
On August 27, 2021, an immigration judge denied Petitioner’s application for asylum and
withholding of removal. (Id., PageID.78; Order of the Immigration Judge, ECF No. 4-3,
PageID.60.) The immigration judge also ordered that Petitioner be removed to India. (Oral
Decision of the Immigration Judge, ECF No. 4-4, PageID.78.) Petitioner filed an appeal with the
Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). (Case Information, ECF No. 4-6, PageID.88.)
On October 29, 2025, Petitioner was extradited to Jackson, Michigan, and arrested by state
law enforcement officers for an unspecified drug violation. (Form I-213, ECF No. 4-5, PageID.84.)
ICE agents received notice of that arrest, and on December 6, 2025, ICE agents took Petitioner
into custody. (Id., PageID.82, 84.) On February 24, 2026, the BIA dismissed Petitioner’s appeal
of his removal order. (Case Information, ECF No. 4-6, PageID.88.)
Case 1:26-cv-00648-HYJ-PJG ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 03/23/26 Page 2
of 4

3
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
Respondents presented evidence that indicates Petitioner received an order of removal on
August 27, 2021, and that his appeal to the BIA was dismissed on February 24, 2026. (Case
Information, ECF No. 4-6, PageID.87–88.) Respondents argue that Petitioner is subject to an
administratively final order of removal and that he is properly detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C.
§ 1231. Petitioner does not dispute, or even acknowledge, Respondents’ claim that Petitioner is
subject to an administratively final order of removal. Petitioner likewise does not address
Respondents’ argument that Petitioner is properly detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1231.
Section 1231 provides that “when an alien is ordered removed, the Attorney General shall
remove the alien from the United States within a period of 90 days (in this section referred to as
the ‘removal period’).” 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1)(A). “During the removal period, the Attorney
General shall detain the alien.” Id. § 1231(a)(2)(A). “The removal period begins on the latest of
the following: (i) the date the order of removal becomes administratively final. (ii) If the removal
order is judicially reviewed and if a court orders a stay of the removal of the alien, the date of the
court’s final order. (iii) If the alien is detained or confined (except under an immigration process),
the date the alien is released from detention or confinement.” Id. § 1231(a)(1)(B)(i)–(iii). An order
Case 1:26-cv-00648-HYJ-PJG ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 03/23/26 Page 3
of 4

4
of removal “shall become final upon the earlier of . . . a determination by the Board of Immigration
Appeals affirming such order; or . . . the expiration of the period in which the alien is permitted to
seek review of such order by the Board of Immigration Appeals.” Id. § 1101(a)(47)(B)(i)–(ii).
Here, as noted above, Petitioner received a final order of removal on August 27, 2021, and
his appeal to the BIA was dismissed on February 24, 2026. (Case Information, ECF No. 4-6,
PageID.87–88.) Therefore, Petitioner’s order of removal became final on February 24, 2026. See
8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(47)(B)(i)–(ii). Furthermore, there is no indication in the record before the Court
that Petitioner’s removal order is the subject of judicial review, see id. § 1231(a)(1)(B)(ii), or that
Petitioner was detained or confined for any reason other than under an immigration process after
February 24, 2026, see id. § 1231(a)(1)(B)(iii). Therefore, Petitioner’s removal period began on
February 24, 2026, when the BIA dismissed his appeal. See id. § 1231(a)(1)(B). Because the 90-
day removal period following the order has not expired, Petitioner is properly detained pursuant
to § 1231(a).
Conclusion
For the reasons discussed above, the Court will enter a judgment dismissing Petitioner’s
petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 without prejudice.
Dated: March 23, 2026 /s/ Hala Y. Jarbou
HALA Y. JARBOU
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 1:26-cv-00648-HYJ-PJG ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 03/23/26 Page 4
of 4