Rajabov v. Raycraft et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
______
JAVOKHIR RAJABOV,
Petitioner,
v.
KEVIN RAYCRAFT et al.,
Respondents.
,____________________________/
Case No. 1:26-cv-777
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
and grant any further relief the Court deems just and proper. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.8.)
In an order entered on March 11, 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. 4.) Respondents filed their response on March 16, 2026,
(ECF No. 5), and Petitioner filed his reply on March 18, 2026, (ECF No. 6).
Case 1:26-cv-00777-JMB-SJB ECF No. 9, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/16/26 Page 1
of 4

2
II. 	Relevant Factual Background
Petitioner is a citizen of Uzbekistan who entered the United States in 2019, as an asylum
seeker with his family. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.3, 4.) On October 30, 2025, ICE arrested
Petitioner while he was working as a truck driver. (Id., PageID.5.)
On January 15, 2026, Petitioner filed a § 2241 petition challenging his initial detention
without a bond hearing in Rajabov v. Raycraft (Rajabov I), No. 1:26-cv-164 (W.D. Mich.). In
Rajabov 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., Rajabov I, (W.D. Mich.
February 5, 2026), (ECF Nos. 7, 8.).
On February 10, 2026, Petitioner received a bond hearing pursuant to § 1226(a). (Pet., ECF
No. 1, PageID.5; Order of the Immigration Judge, ECF No. 1-4, PageID.18.) On that same day,
the immigration judge issued an order denying bond. (Order of the Immigration Judge, ECF No.
1-4, PageID.18.) The Order of the Immigration Judge specifically states:
R[espondent] failed to show he is not a flight risk. Respondent is a recent entrant, his
wife and children have left the United States, and Respondent has limited ties to this
country.
(Id.)
III. 	Discussion
Respondents argue that the Court should deny Petitioner’s § 2241 petition because of
Petitioner’s failure to exhaust his 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 in Soto-Medina, the Court
Case 1:26-cv-00777-JMB-SJB ECF No. 9, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/16/26 Page 2
of 4

3
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.
V. 	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 Detroit ICE 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 Detroit ICE Field Office Director and the Secretary
for the Department of Homeland Security as Respondents. The Court will dismiss the Department
of Homeland Security as a Respondent.
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 a
Case 1:26-cv-00777-JMB-SJB ECF No. 9, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/16/26 Page 3
of 4

4
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.
The Court will dismiss the Department of Homeland Security as a Respondent in this matter.
Dated:
Jane M. Beckering
United States District Judge
April 16, 2026 	/s/ Jane M. Beckering
Case 1:26-cv-00777-JMB-SJB ECF No. 9, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/16/26 Page 4
of 4