Alvarez-Meneses v. Raycraft et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
______
URIEL ALVAREZ-MENESES,
Petitioner,
v.
KEVIN RAYCRAFT et al.,
Respondents.
____________________________/
Case No. 1:26-cv-888
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 deny Petitioner’s petition for a writ of
habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 without prejudice.
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,
reinstate his prior bond, 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, PageID17.)
In an order entered on March 25, 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-00888-JMB-MV ECF No. 11, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/17/26 Page 1
of 3

2
should not be granted. (Order, ECF No. 5.) Respondents filed their response on March 30, 2026,
and a recording of the December 22, 2025 bond hearing on April 13, 2026. (Resp., ECF No. 6;
Recording of Dec. 22, 2025 Bond Hearing, ECF No. 9.) Petitioner filed his reply on March 31,
2026 (ECF No. 7), and submitted supplemental evidence containing the evidence he submitted at
the December 22, 2025 bond hearing, on April 14, 2026, (ECF No. 10).
II. 	Relevant Factual Background
Petitioner is a citizen of Mexico who entered the United States in 2005, at an unknown
location without inspection. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.5; Notice to Appear (NTA), ECF No. 6-1,
PageID.78.) On December 12, 2024, Petitioner was initially arrested by ICE and placed in removal
proceedings. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.6.) On February 6, 2025, the Chicago Immigration Court
granted Petitioner a bond and he was released from ICE custody on March 6, 2025. (Id.; Order of
the Immigration Judge (IJ), ECF No. 1-2, PageID.22.)
On October 4, 2025, Petitioner was re-detained by ICE during Operation Midway Blitz
while he was walking to a bus stop in Chicago. (Id.; 2025 Form I-213, ECF No. 6-4, PageID.88.)
On December 2, 2025, Petitioner filed a § 2241 petition challenging his detention without
a bond hearing in Alvarez-Meneses v. Raycraft (Alvarez-Meneses I), No. 1:25-cv-1666 (W.D.
Mich.). In Alvarez-Meneses I, the Court dismissed without prejudice Petitioner’s petition for a writ
of habeas corpus as moot, because Petitioner had a bond hearing pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a)
on December 22, 2025, which was the relief that he sought in his § 2241 petition. Op. & Jud.,
Alvarez-Meneses I, (W.D. Mich. Jan. 28, 2026), (ECF Nos. 19, 21). The IJ denied bond because
Petitioner “is a danger due to his three DWI arrests.” (Order of the IJ, ECF No. 1-3, PageID.25.)
On February 18, 2026, Petitioner filed a second § 2241 petition challenging the IJ’s factual
determinations related to the bond decision in Alvarez-Meneses v. Dunbar (Alvarez-Meneses II),
No. 1:26-cv-555 (W.D. Mich.). Because Petitioner’s claims challenged the factual findings of the
Case 1:26-cv-00888-JMB-MV ECF No. 11, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/17/26 Page 2
of 3

3
IJ in the bond decision, and Petitioner did not argue that the procedures of the bond hearing violated
his Due Process rights, the Court dismissed Petitioner’s second § 2241 petition, finding that
Petitioner must first exhaust his administrative remedies and file an appeal with the Board of
Immigration Appeals (BIA) to address his claims related to the IJ’s factual findings. Op. & Jud.,
Alvarez-Meneses II, (W.D. Mich. March 9, 2026), (ECF Nos. 7, 8).
III. 	Discussion
In 	Petitioner’s 	§ 2241 	petition, 	Petitioner 	argues 	that 	the 	IJ 	did 	not 	apply 	the
constitutionally required burden of proof at Petitioner’s § 1226(a) bond hearing on December 22,
2025. Specifically, Petitioner argues that the IJ failed to require the government to demonstrate
dangerousness or flight risk by clear and convincing evidence. See Soto-Medina v. Lynch,
No. 1:25-cv-1704, --- F. Supp. 3d ----, 2026 WL 161002, at *2 (W.D. Mich. Jan. 21, 2026)
(addressing the constitutionally required burden of proof).
Based on the record before the Court at this time, including the recording of the § 1226(a)
bond hearing, there is no indication in the record that the IJ applied an unconstitutional burden of
proof at the bond hearing. Under these circumstances, the Court will deny Petitioner’s § 2241
petition without prejudice.
Conclusion
For the reasons discussed above, the Court will enter a judgment denying Petitioner’s
petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 without prejudice.
Dated: 	April 17, 2026 	/s/ Jane M. Beckering
Jane M. Beckering
United States District Judge
Case 1:26-cv-00888-JMB-MV ECF No. 11, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/17/26 Page 3
of 3