Feliz Joseph v. Raycraft, et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
______
VALERIA FELIZ JOSEPH,
Petitioner,
v.
KEVIN RAYCRAFT et al.,
Respondents.
____________________________/
Case No. 1:26-cv-655
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.) The Court will grant Petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF
No. 2.) Moreover, 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 her current detention
and asks the Court to, inter alia, assume jurisdiction over this matter 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 1:26-cv-00655-PLM-PJG ECF No. 12, PageID.<pageID> Filed 03/06/26 Page 1
of 6

2
In an order entered on February 9, 2026, the Court directed Respondents to respond to the
petition for a writ of habeas corpus no later than February 25, 2026. (Stipulated Order, ECF No. 6.)
Respondents filed their response on February 25, 2026, (ECF No. 7), and Petitioner filed her reply
on March 2, 2026, (ECF No. 11).
II. 	Factual Background
Petitioner is a native and citizen of the Dominican Republic. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.7;
Notice to Appear (NTA), ECF No. 7-1, PageID.83.) Petitioner entered the United States in
November 2021, at an unknown location without inspection. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.7; NTA,
ECF No. 7-1, PageID.83.) Petitioner’s husband and daughter are U.S. citizens, and her son from a
prior relationship is a lawful permanent resident. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.8.) Petitioner does not
have a criminal record. (Id., PageID.9.) On June 16, 2025, Petitioner was in a car accident near her
home in Detroit. (Id., PageID.9–10.) Shortly after the police arrived, Petitioner was arrested and
taken into custody. (Id., PageID.10.) She spent three days in the custody of the Detroit Police
Department before being transferred to ICE detention. (Id.) Petitioner was never charged with a
crime regarding the car accident. (Id., PageID.11.)
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) 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.]” (NTA, ECF No. 7-1,
PageID.86.) Petitioner requested a bond hearing before an Immigration Judge (IJ). (Pet.,
ECF No. 1, PageID.11.) On January 20, 2026, the IJ denied bond because it lacked jurisdiction,
and there was “[n]o argument why Hurtado [Matter of Yajure Hurtado, 29 I&N Dec. 216 (BIA
Case 1:26-cv-00655-PLM-PJG ECF No. 12, PageID.<pageID> Filed 03/06/26 Page 2
of 6

3
2025)] does not apply.” (Order of the IJ, ECF No. 1, PageID.34.) Petitioner is scheduled for an
individual hearing in the Detroit Immigration Court on March 26, 2026. (Notice of Internet-Based
Hearing, ECF No. 7-3, PageID.87.)
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
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,
Case 1:26-cv-00655-PLM-PJG ECF No. 12, PageID.<pageID> Filed 03/06/26 Page 3
of 6

4
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
B. 	Fifth Amendment Due Process Considerations
Petitioner also argues that her 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 her, has access to counsel, has attended 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 six months.2
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.
1 The Court is aware of Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, No. 25-20496, --- F.4th ----, 2026 WL
323330 (5th Cir. Feb. 6, 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.
2 Petitioner has actually been detained for more than six months.
Case 1:26-cv-00655-PLM-PJG ECF No. 12, PageID.<pageID> Filed 03/06/26 Page 4
of 6

5
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 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
Department of Homeland Security, the United States Attorney General, and the Executive Office
for Immigration Review as Respondents.
Conclusion
The Court will grant Petitioner leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 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,
Case 1:26-cv-00655-PLM-PJG ECF No. 12, PageID.<pageID> Filed 03/06/26 Page 5
of 6

6
immediately release Petitioner from custody.3 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
dismiss the United States Department of Homeland Security, the United States Attorney General,
and the Executive Office for Immigration Review
Dated: 	March 6, 2026 	/s/ Paul L. Maloney
Paul L. Maloney
United States District Judge
3 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-00655-PLM-PJG ECF No. 12, PageID.<pageID> Filed 03/06/26 Page 6
of 6