Cendejas-Ramirez v. Raycraft et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
______
JOSE EZLIN RICARDO
CENDEJAS-RAMIREZ,
Petitioner,
v.
KEVIN RAYCRAFT et al.,
Respondents.
____________________________/
Case No. 1:26-cv-1129
Honorable Robert J. Jonker
OPINION
Petitioner, a United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detainee, initiated
this action by filing a 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 the petition for a writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
Discussion
I. Procedural History
The habeas petition challenges the lawfulness of Petitioner’s current detention and asks the
Court to issue a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 either ordering Respondents
to release Petitioner or ordering Respondents to conduct a bond hearing to satisfy the requirements
of due process. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.23.) 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
and other relief requested by Petitioner should not be granted. (Order, ECF No. 3.) Respondents
filed their response on April 10, 2026, (ECF No. 5), and Petitioner filed his reply on April 13,
2026, (ECF No. 6). On May 13, 2026, Petitioner filed a status report in which he again requested
Case 1:26-cv-01129-RJJ-MV ECF No. 8, PageID.<pageID> Filed 05/19/26 Page 1
of 5

2
that the Court either order Respondents to release Petitioner or to provide him with “a
constitutionally adequate bond hearing.” (ECF No. 7, PageID.107.)
II. Factual Background
Petitioner is a native and citizen of Mexico. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.2, Notice to Appear
(NTA), ECF No. 5-1, PageID.70.) On December 30, 2023, Petitioner applied for admission into
the United States at the Brownsville, Texas Port of Entry. (NTA, ECF No. 5-1, PageID.70.) At
that time, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued Petitioner a Form I-862, NTA,
charging him with inadmissibility pursuant to § 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (INA) for being “an immigrant who, at the time of application for admission, is
not in possession of [valid immigration and travel documents].” (Id., PageID.70–73.) Petitioner
was paroled into the United States under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5) for a period of two years. (2023
I-213, ECF No. 5-2, PageID.76; Status Rep., ECF No. 7, PageID.105). Petitioner’s parole has
now expired.1
On March 24, 2026, ICE agents arrested Petitioner. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.2; 2026 Form
I-213, ECF No. 5-4, PageID.82.) Petitioner was scheduled for a hearing before the Detroit
Immigration Court on April 15, 2026. (Notice of Hearing, ECF No. 5-7, PageID.89.) Respondents
1 The parties disagree about when Petitioner’s parole expired. Respondents say that it
expired on April 18, 2025. (Resp., ECF No. 5, PageID.58.) This is the same day that DHS “issued
a blanket termination of parole,” see Rodriguez Martinez v. Raycraft, No. 1:25-cv-1504, 2025 WL
3511093, at *2 (W.D. Mich. Dec. 8, 2025) (citation omitted), and it seems that it is on the basis of
this blanket revocation that Respondents say that the parole has now expired. Petitioner contends
that his parole period extended from December of 2023 to December of 2025. (Status Rep., ECF
No. 7, PageID.105.) Because neither party contends that the parole was still in place at the time
Petitioner was arrested, the Court will not elaborate any further on the precise date Petitioner’s
parole period ended.
Case 1:26-cv-01129-RJJ-MV ECF No. 8, PageID.<pageID> Filed 05/19/26 Page 2
of 5

3
have not provided Petitioner an individualized bond hearing before an immigration judge as
contemplated by 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a).2
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 upon the federal courts 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. Merits Discussion
A. Statutory Basis for Petitioner’s Detention
Based on the facts presented by the parties, and the reasoning of the Sixth Circuit Court of
Appeals in Lopez-Campos v. Raycraft, Nos. 25-1965, 1969, 1978, 1982, 2026 WL 1283891 (6th
Cir. May 11, 2026), the Court concludes that § 1226(a), not § 1225(b)(2)(A), governs Petitioner’s
detention.
B. Fifth Amendment Due Process Considerations
The Fifth Amendment guarantees that “[n]o person shall . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or
property, without due process of law.” U.S. Const. amend. V. In Lopez-Campos, the Sixth Circuit
explained:
Noncitizens who have “passed through our gates, even illegally, may be expelled
only after proceedings conforming to traditional standards of fairness encompassed
in due process of law.” Shaughnessy v. United States ex rel. Mezei, 345 U.S. 206,
212 (1953); see also Yamataya v. Fisher, 189 U.S. 86, 100–01 (1903). Thus,
2 The materials submitted by the parties do not suggest that Petitioner is subject to a final
order of removal or that Petitioner is subject to detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c).
Case 1:26-cv-01129-RJJ-MV ECF No. 8, PageID.<pageID> Filed 05/19/26 Page 3
of 5

4
noncitizens within the interior of the United States are entitled to the protections of
the Due Process Clause, “whether their presence here is lawful, unlawful,
temporary, or permanent.” Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 693 (2001). “It is well
established that the Fifth Amendment entitles aliens to due process of law in
[removal] proceedings.” Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292, 306 (1993); see also
Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510, 523 (2003). Consequently, the government may not
deny “notice” or “an opportunity to be heard” to a noncitizen “who has entered the
country, and has become subject in all respects to its jurisdiction, and a part of its
population, although alleged to be illegally here.” Yamataya, 189 U.S. at 100–01.
Lopez-Campos, 2026 WL 1283891, at *11. The Sixth Circuit therefore upheld the lower courts’
determinations the government’s detention of the Lopez-Campos petitioners “without bond under
§ 1226(a) was a deprivation of liberty that violated [their] due process rights.” Id. at *13.
Petitioner is likewise detained under § 1226(a) and has been denied an individualized bond
hearing. Therefore, the Court 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. See id.; see also 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).
V. 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.
VI. Proper Respondents
Respondents argue that the Detroit ICE Field Office Director is the only proper Respondent
in this action. They seek the dismissal of the other named Respondents. The Court concludes
that the ICE Detroit Field Office Director is not the only proper Respondent for the reasons set
forth in the Court’s analysis of the same argument in each of the following cases: Antele Cobix v.
Case 1:26-cv-01129-RJJ-MV ECF No. 8, PageID.<pageID> Filed 05/19/26 Page 4
of 5

5
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). To ensure that this Court’s orders regarding habeas relief
will bind at least one Respondent with authority to act in the event that Petitioner is transferred
outside the area under the authority of the ICE Detroit Field Office, the Court will retain all of the
remaining Respondents.
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. 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.
Dated: May 19, 2026 /s/ Robert J. Jonker
Robert J. Jonker
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-01129-RJJ-MV ECF No. 8, PageID.<pageID> Filed 05/19/26 Page 5
of 5