Ngonguia Ossema v. Unknown Party

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
______
ARMEL CERONE NGONGUIA OSSEMA,
Petitioner,
v.
KEVIN RAYCRAFT,
Respondent.
____________________________/
Case No. 1:26-cv-844
Hon. Hala Y. Jarbou
OPINION
Petitioner, a United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detainee currently
detained at the Calhoun County Correctional Facility in Battle Creek, Calhoun County, Michigan,
initiated this action by filing a pro se 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, Petitioner challenges the lawfulness of his 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 ordering Respondents to release Petitioner. (Pet., ECF No. 1,
PageID.7.)
In an order entered on March 18, 2026, the Court directed Respondents to show cause,
within three business days, why the writ of habeas corpus and other relief requested by Petitioner
Case 1:26-cv-00844-HYJ-RSK ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/16/26 Page 1
of 6

2
should not be granted. (Order, ECF No. 4.) Respondents filed their response on March 23, 2026,
(ECF No. 5.)
II. 	Factual Background
Petitioner is a native and citizen of Congo. (Notice to Appear (NTA), ECF No. 5-2,
PageID.51.) Petitioner entered the United States on or about May 3, 2024, at or near Otay Mesa,
California, without inspection. (Id.) That same day, Petitioner was encountered and arrested by a
Border Patrol agent. (Warrant for Arrest, ECF No. 5-3, PageID.55; 2024 Form I-213, ECF No. 5-
4, PageID.58.) The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued Petitioner a Form I-862,
NTA, charging Petitioner with inadmissibility under § 212(a)(6)(A)(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.” (Id.) DHS then released Petitioner into the United States on
his own recognizance “[i]n accordance with section 236 of the [INA],” which is codified at 8
U.S.C. § 1226. (Order Release Recognizance, ECF No. 5-5, PageID.61.)
On June 5, 2025, ICE agents arrested Petitioner. (2025 Form I-213, ECF No. 5-6,
PageID.64.) DHS issued Petitioner a Notice and Order of Expedited Removal (Notice and Order,
ECF No. 5-7, PageID.68) and subsequently filed a motion to dismiss Petitioner’s removal
proceedings, which was granted by the Detroit Immigration Court on June 23, 2025 (Immigration
Judge Order, ECF No. 5-9, PageID.72.) Petitioner has appealed the June 23, 2025, order to the
Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). (Notice of Appeal, ECF No. 5-10, PageID.75.)1
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 8 U.S.C. § 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 of the period in which the alien
Case 1:26-cv-00844-HYJ-RSK ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/16/26 Page 2
of 6

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. 	Jurisdiction
Respondents argue that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g) divests this Court of jurisdiction over
Petitioner’s habeas action. The Court concludes that it does not preclude the Court’s review of
Petitioner’s § 2241 petition for the reasons set forth in the Court’s jurisdiction analysis in each of
the following cases: Avila Maltos v. Noem, No. 1:25-cv-1299, 2025 WL 3550605, at *2–3 (W.D.
Mich. Dec. 11, 2025); Aguilar-Duran v. Unknown Party, No. 1:25-cv-1418, 2025 WL 3458572,
at *2–3 (W.D. Mich. Dec. 2, 2025); Flores Garcia v. Noem, No. 1:25-cv-1387, 2025 WL 3458531,
at *2–3 (W.D. Mich. Dec. 2, 2025); Hernandez Lopez v. Raycraft, No. 1:25-cv-1412, 2025 WL
3290655, at *2–3 (W.D. Mich. Nov. 26, 2025); Rondan Jarrett v. Raycraft, No. 1:26-cv-244 (W.D.
Mich. Feb. 6, 2026).
V. 	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
is permitted to seek review of such order by the Board of Immigration Appeals.” 8 U.S.C.
§ 1101(a)(47)(B).
Case 1:26-cv-00844-HYJ-RSK ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/16/26 Page 3
of 6

4
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.
VI. 	Merits Discussion
A. 	Statutory Basis for Petitioner’s Detention
Respondents 	contend 	that 	Petitioner 	is 	subject 	to 	mandatory 	detention 	under
§ 1225(b)(2)(A). 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).2
2 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,
Case 1:26-cv-00844-HYJ-RSK ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/16/26 Page 4
of 6

5
B. 	Fifth Amendment Due Process Considerations
The Court also 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).
VII. 	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.
VIII. 	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 will
dismiss Respondent Unknown Party for 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).
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-00844-HYJ-RSK ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/16/26 Page 5
of 6

6
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.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 Unknown Party as a Respondent.
Dated: April 16, 2026 	/s/ Hala Y. Jarbou
HALA Y. JARBOU
CHIEF 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-00844-HYJ-RSK ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/16/26 Page 6
of 6