Guenson v. Raycraft et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
______
ULYSSE GUENSON,
Petitioner,
v.
KEVIN RAYCRAFT et al.,
Respondents.
____________________________/
Case No. 1:26-cv-1078
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 third § 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. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.7–8.)
In an order entered on April 6 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. 3.) Respondents filed their response and a recording of the
Case 1:26-cv-01078-JMB-SJB ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/30/26 Page 1
of 4

2
March 19, 2026 bond hearing on April 9, 2026. (Resp., ECF No. 4; Recording of March 19, 2026
Bond Hearing, filed on Apr. 9, 2026.) Petitioner filed his reply later that same day, (ECF No. 5).
II. 	Relevant Factual Background
Petitioner is a citizen of Haiti who entered the United States in 2024. (Pet., ECF No. 1,
PageID.4; 2025 Form I-213, ECF No. 1-1, PageID.11.) On December 29, 2025, Petitioner was
arrested and detained by ICE at a check-in appointment in Detroit. (2025 Form I-213, ECF
No. 1-1, PageID.11.)
On January 15, 2026, Petitioner filed a § 2241 petition challenging his initial detention
without a bond hearing in Guenson Ulysse v. Raycraft, No. 1:26-cv-166 (W.D. Mich.). In Ulysse,
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., Ulysse, (W.D. Mich. Feb. 2,
2026), (ECF Nos. 6, 7).
On February 9, 2026, Petitioner received a bond hearing pursuant to § 1226(a). (See Resp.,
ECF No. 4, PageID.49.) At that hearing, the Immigration Judge (IJ) denied bond because Petitioner
did not establish he does not present a flight risk. Pet., Guenson, (W.D. Mich. March 2, 2026),
(ECF No. 1, PageID.5). On March 2, 2026, Petitioner filed a second § 2241 petition challenging
the burden of proof at the February 9, 2026 bond hearing in Guenson v. Raycraft, 1:26-cv-695
(W.D. Mich.). In Guenson, the Court conditionally granted Petitioner petition for a writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, ordering Respondents to provide Petitioner with an bond
hearing 	pursuant 	to 	§ 1226(a) 	at 	which 	the 	government 	has 	the 	burden 	to 	demonstrate
dangerousness or flight risk by clear and convincing evidence, within five business days of the
Case 1:26-cv-01078-JMB-SJB ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/30/26 Page 2
of 4

3
date of the Court’s Opinion and Judgment or, in the alternative, immediately release Petitioner
from custody. Op. & Jud., Guenson, (W.D. Mich. March. 13, 2026), (ECF Nos. 7, 8).
On March 19, 2026, in compliance with this Court’s Opinion and Judgment, Petitioner
received a bond hearing pursuant to § 1226(a). (See Resp., ECF No. 4, PageID.49.) At the
conclusion of the hearing the IJ denied Petitioner’s request for bond, stating, “Court finds by clear
and convincing evidence that the [Petitioner] is a flight risk who has failed to comply with ATD
and has a previous removal order. [Petitioner] has a low likelihood of being granted relief.” (Order
of the IJ, ECF No. 1-2, PageID.14.)
III. 	Discussion
In Petitioner’s § 2241 petition, Petitioner argues that the Immigration Judge did not apply
the constitutionally required burden of proof at Petitioner’s § 1226(a) bond hearing on March 19,
2026. Specifically, Petitioner argues that the Immigration Judge 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 Immigration Judge applied an
unconstitutional burden of proof at the bond hearing. Under these circumstances, the Court will
deny Petitioner’s § 2241 petition without prejudice.
Case 1:26-cv-01078-JMB-SJB ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/30/26 Page 3
of 4

4
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:
Jane M. Beckering
United States District Judge
April 30, 2026 	/s/ Jane M. Beckering
Case 1:26-cv-01078-JMB-SJB ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/30/26 Page 4
of 4