Kouam v. Raycraft et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
______
FRANCLINE KOUAM,
Petitioner,
v.
KEVIN RAYCRAFT et al.,
Respondents.
____________________________/
Case No. 1:26-cv-1109
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 or
that the Court 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.12.)
In an order entered on April 9, 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
Case 1:26-cv-01109-JMB-SJB ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/29/26 Page 1
of 3

2
not be granted. (Order, ECF No. 4.) Respondents filed their response on April 14, 2026. (Resp.,
ECF No. 5.) Petitioner filed his reply on April 16, 2026. (ECF No. 6.)
II. 	Relevant Factual Background
Petitioner is a citizen of Cameroon who entered the United States on or about August 28,
2019. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.5.) On December 9, 2025, Petitioner was arrested by ICE. (Id.,
PageID.6.)
On January 9, 2026, Petitioner filed a § 2241 petition challenging his initial detention
without a bond hearing in Kouam v. Raycraft (Kouam I), No. 1:26-cv-94 (W.D. Mich.). In Kouam
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., Kouam I, (W.D. Mich.
Jan. 21, 2026), (ECF Nos. 6, 7).
On January 28, 2026, Petitioner received a bond hearing pursuant to § 1226(a). (Pet., ECF
No. 1, PageID.1.) At the conclusion of the January 28, 2026, hearing, in a written order, the
immigration judge denied Petitioner’s request for bond, finding that Petitioner was a flight risk.
(Id., PageID.2.)
On February 23, 2026, Petitioner filed a § 2241 petition, challenging the adequacy of the
January 28, 2026, bond hearing in Kouam v. Raycraft (Kouam II), No. 1:26-cv-607 (W.D. Mich.).
In Kouam II, Petitioner argued that the immigration judge improperly placed the burden of proof
on Petitioner in the bond hearing and that the immigration judge committed legal error by
determining that Petitioner “was a flight risk based exclusively on the existence of a non-final
order of removal.” Pet., Kouam II, (W.D. Mich. Feb. 23, 2026), (ECF No. 1). The Court denied
Petitioner’s petition because the record did not indicate “that the Immigration Judge applied an
Case 1:26-cv-01109-JMB-SJB ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/29/26 Page 2
of 3

3
unconstitutional burden of proof at the bond hearing.” Op. & Jud., Kouam II, (W.D. Mich.
Mar. 23, 2026), (ECF Nos. 7, 8).
III. 	Discussion
In Petitioner’s present § 2241 petition, Petitioner argues that the immigration judge
committed legal error by misapplying the law to the facts, and requests that the Court review the
immigration judge’s decision to deny Petitioner’s request for bond. (Pet., ECF No. 1.) Petitioner
asserted essentially this same argument in Kouam II. Pet., Kouam II, (W.D. Mich. Feb. 23, 2026),
(ECF No. 1). As addressed by the Court in Kouam II, 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. Op.,
Kouam II, (W.D. Mich. Mar. 23, 2026), (ECF No. 7). 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:
Jane M. Beckering
United States District Judge
April 29, 2026 	/s/ Jane M. Beckering
Case 1:26-cv-01109-JMB-SJB ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/29/26 Page 3
of 3