Patel v. Raycraft et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
______
BRIJESHKUMAR PATEL,
Petitioner,
v.
KEVIN RAYCRAFT et al.,
Respondents.
____________________________/
Case No. 1:26-cv-690
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 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, he 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 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 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.11.) In an order entered on March 6, 2026, the Court directed
Respondents to show cause, within three business days, why the writ of habeas corpus should not
Case 1:26-cv-00690-JMB-SJB ECF No. 8, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/13/26 Page 1
of 3

2
be granted. (Order, ECF No. 4.) Respondents filed their response on March 11, 2026, but failed to
submit a transcript or recording of the bond hearing as the order to show cause required. (ECF
No. 5.) Petitioner filed his reply the same day. (ECF No. 6.) On March 20, 2026, the Court ordered
Respondents to comply with the order to show cause by submitting transcripts or a recording of
the bond hearing. (ECF No. 7.) On March 23, 2026, Respondents submitted a recording of the
bond hearing.
II. 	Factual Background
Petitioner is a citizen of India who entered the United States in 2015 pursuant to a B-2 visa.
(Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.2.) That visa expired on February 9, 2016. (Notice to Appear, ECF
No. 5-2, PageID.44.) On or about December 31, 2025, ICE agents arrested Petitioner in Michigan.
(Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.2.)
On January 29, 2026, Petitioner received a bond hearing pursuant to § 1226(a). (Recording
of Jan. 29, 2026, Bond Hearing, at 0:03, filed Mar. 23, 2026.) At the conclusion of the January 29,
2026, hearing, the immigration judge found that Petitioner was a danger to the community and
denied Petitioner’s request for a change in custody status. (Id., at 5:38–5:43.) The immigration
judge’s ruling was based on a then-pending criminal charge of retail theft. 1 (Id., at 5:43–5:54.) In
explaining the ruling, the immigration judge stated that it was “[Petitioner’s] burden to show he’s
not a danger[.]” (Id., at 5:56–5:59.) The immigration judge memorialized that ruling in a written
order entered the same day. (Immigration Judge Order, ECF No. 1-3, PageID.22.)
1 Petitioner asserts that he received six months of probation and the criminal charge was dismissed.
(Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.3.)
Case 1:26-cv-00690-JMB-SJB ECF No. 8, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/13/26 Page 2
of 3

3
III. 	Analysis
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, No. 1:25-cv-1704, --- F. Supp. 3d ----, 2026 WL 161002, at *2 (W.D. Mich. Jan. 21,
2026). Therefore, for the reasons set forth 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
The Court will order Respondents to provide Petitioner with an individualized bond
hearing before a neutral 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	April 13, 2026
Case 1:26-cv-00690-JMB-SJB ECF No. 8, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/13/26 Page 3
of 3