Castro Gutierrez v. Raycraft et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
______
NIKORA CASTRO GUTIERREZ,
Petitioner,
v.
KEVIN RAYCRAFT et al.,
Respondents.
____________________________/
Case No. 1:26-cv-1127
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 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, she challenges the constitutionality of her current detention
following an order issued by the Detroit Immigration Court denying her bond, and asks the Court
to, inter alia, issue a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 ordering Respondents to
release Petitioner 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, PageID.7.) In an order entered on April 7, 2026, the Court directed
Respondents to show cause, within three business days, why the writ of habeas corpus should not
Case 1:26-cv-01127-JMB-RSK ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/21/26 Page 1
of 3

2
be granted. (Order, ECF No. 4.) Respondents filed their response and a recording of the April 1,
2026, bond hearing on April 10, 2026, (Resp., ECF No. 5; Recording of Apr. 1, 2026, Bond
Hearing, filed on April 10, 2026.)
II. 	Factual Background
Petitioner is a citizen of Venezuela who entered the United States in 2024. (Pet., ECF No. 1,
PageID.4); Op., Castro Gutierrez v. Raycraft (Castro Guiterrez I), No. 1:26-cv-771 (W.D. Mich.
Mar. 30, 2026) (ECF No. 6). On February 27, 2026, Petitioner was arrested by ICE agents. (Pet.,
ECF No. 1, PageID.4.)
On March 9, 2026, Petitioner filed a § 2241 petition challenging her initial detention
without a bond hearing in Castro Guiterrez I. In Castro Guiterrez 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., Castro Guiterrez I, (W.D. Mich. Mar. 30, 2026), (ECF
Nos. 6, 7).
On April 1, 2026, Petitioner received a bond hearing pursuant to § 1226(a). (Immigration
Judge Order, ECF No. 1-1, PageID.10.) At the conclusion of that, hearing, the immigration judge
denied Petitioner’s request for bond because Petitioner “failed to show she is not a flight risk.”
(Id.)
III. 	Analysis
Respondents argue that the Court should deny Petitioner’s § 2241 petition due to a lack of
jurisdiction and Petitioner’s failure to exhaust Petitioner’s administrative remedies, as well as on
the merits. The Court has fully addressed these issues and Respondents’ arguments in Soto-Medina
v. Lynch, No. 1:25-cv-1704, --- F. Supp. 3d ----, 2026 WL 161002, at *2 (W.D. Mich. Jan. 21,
Case 1:26-cv-01127-JMB-RSK ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/21/26 Page 2
of 3

3
2026). Therefore, for the reasons set forth in Soto-Medina, the Court 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.
Conclusion
The Court will order Respondents to provide Petitioner with an individualized bond
hearing before a 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.
Dated:
Jane M. Beckering
United States District Judge
April 21, 2026 /s/ Jane M. Beckering
Case 1:26-cv-01127-JMB-RSK ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/21/26 Page 3
of 3