Singh v. Raycraft et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
______
HARPREET SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
KEVIN RAYCRAFT et al.,
Respondents.
____________________________/
Case No. 1:26-cv-1182
Honorable Hala Y. Jarbou
OPINION
Petitioner, a United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detainee, 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 dismiss Petitioner’s petition for a writ
of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 without prejudice as moot.
Discussion
I. 	Procedural History
In Petitioner’s § 2241 petition, Petitioner challenges the lawfulness of his current detention
and asks the Court to, inter alia, assume jurisdiction over this matter and 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.16.)
In an order entered on April 16, 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. 4.) In response, on April 21, 2026, Respondents filed a motion to
Case 1:26-cv-01182-HYJ-SJB ECF No. 14, PageID.<pageID> Filed 06/01/26 Page 1
of 5

2
dismiss and brief in support of their motion, (Resp., ECF No. 5; Brief Supp. Resp., ECF No. 6),1
and Petitioner filed his reply on April 24, 2026, (Reply, ECF No. 9.) Thereafter, in response to the
Court’s order to provide a copy of any transcript or recording (ECF No. 12), Respondents filed a
recording of the June 3, 2025, bond hearing on May 5, 2026 (Recording of June 3, 2025, Bond
Hearing, filed on May 5, 2026, ECF No. 13.)
II. 	Factual Background
Petitioner is a native and citizen of India who entered the United States on or about March
26, 2023, without inspection near Lukeville, Arizona. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.3; Notice to
Appear (NTA), ECF No. 1-1, PageID.17.) After Petitioner entered the United States, Department
of Homeland (DHS) agents encountered Petitioner, and on March 28, 2023, DHS charged
Petitioner with inadmissibility under § 212(a)(6)(A)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act
(INA) because Petitioner is an immigrant “present in the United States without being admitted or
paroled, or who arrived in the United States at any time or place other than as designated by the
Attorney General.” (NTA, ECF No. 1-1, PageID.17.) Petitioner was then released on his own
recognizance into the United States. (Order Release Recognizance, ECF No. 1-2, PageID.20.)2
On May 20, 2025, Petitioner was visiting friends and potential employer in Liberty
Township, Ohio. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.6, 13.) ICE entered the home where Petitioner was
1 On April 21, 2026, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss in lieu of a response to the § 2241
petition. (ECF No. 5.) As set forth herein, the Court will deny Respondent’s motion to dismiss
without prejudice. The Court’s judgment resolves the case and moots both Petitioner’s petition
and Respondents’ motion to dismiss.
2 Petitioner argues that he was released on parole under 8 U.S.C. § 1182, creating a right not to
have his parole revoked without due process. But he provides no support for the assertion that he
was paroled. 	Instead, it appears that he was released during the pendency of his removal
proceedings, under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), after he received a notice to appear. (See Notice to Appear,
ECF No. 1-1, PageID.17; Order of Release, ECF No. 1-2.)
Case 1:26-cv-01182-HYJ-SJB ECF No. 14, PageID.<pageID> Filed 06/01/26 Page 2
of 5

3
staying with a search warrant and arrested all non-citizen persons in the home.3 (Id.; 2025 I-213,
ECF No. 6-2, PageID.45.) Petitioner was detained and taken into custody. (Id.) On June 3, 2025,
the Cleveland Immigration Court held a § 1226 bond hearing. (Order Immigration Judge, ECF
No. 6-3, PageID.48.) In a written decision issued on June 3, 2026, the Immigration Judge found
that Petitioner’s request for a change in custody status is:
Denied, because [:]
The Court finds that the [Petitioner] is a flight risk. There [is] a lack of ties to the
community in Ohio or California. There is also a lack of information as to why the
[Petitioner] was in Ohio when the search warrant was effectuated in a home he was
visiting. Without this information, the Court does not have sufficient information
that there is any amount that the Court could set as bond that would ensure the
[Petitioner’s] appearance at future hearings.
(June 3, 2025, Order Immigration Judge, ECF No. 6-3, PageID.48.)
On October 27, 2025, the Cleveland Immigration Court denied Petitioner’s asylum
application, denied withholding of removal, and ordered Petitioner removed to India. (October 27,
2025, Order Immigration Judge, ECF No. 6-4, PageID.51–54.) Petitioner appealed the decision to
the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), (Filing Receipt, ECF No. 6-5, PageID.56), and his
appeal remains pending. (Automated Case Information, ECF No. 6-6, No. 60–61.) Because
Petitioner’s 	appeal 	to 	the 	BIA 	remains 	pending, 	Petitioner’s 	order 	of 	removal 	is 	not
“administratively 	final” 	for 	purposes 	of 	the 	INA.4 	See 	8 	U.S.C. 	§§ 1101(a)(47)(B),
1231(a)(1)(B)(i), 1231(a)(2)(A).
3 Respondents do not argue that Petitioner is subject to mandatory detention pursuant to 8 U.S.C.
§ 1226(c), and there is nothing in the record presently before the Court to suggest that Petitioner
was a law enforcement target for any reason other than his status as a noncitizen. (See 2025 Form
I-213, ECF No. 6-2, PageID.45.)
4 Section 1231 of Title 8, titled, “Detention and removal of aliens ordered removed,” provides in
relevant part that, “[d]uring the removal period, the Attorney General shall detain the alien.”
8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(2)(A). However, as relevant to this case, the removal period does not begin to
run until “[t]he date the order of removal becomes administratively final.” Id. § 1231(a)(1)(B)(i).
Case 1:26-cv-01182-HYJ-SJB ECF No. 14, PageID.<pageID> Filed 06/01/26 Page 3
of 5

4
III. 	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 the federal courts with 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).
“Under Article III of the United States Constitution, federal courts have the power to
adjudicate only ‘Cases’ and ‘Controversies.’” Cal. Palms Addiction Recovery Campus, Inc. v.
United States, 158 F.4th 726, 730 (6th Cir. 2025) (quoting Mokdad v. Sessions, 876 F.3d 167, 169
(6th Cir. 2017)). “Part of what Article III requires is that there be a live case or controversy—
‘when the issues presented are no longer live or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the
outcome,’ a case becomes moot.” Id. (some internal quotations omitted) (citation omitted). “When
the 	case-and-controversy 	requirement 	is 	not 	satisfied, 	federal 	courts 	lack 	subject-matter
jurisdiction.” Id. (citing Mokdad, 876 F.3d at 170.)
For the purposes of § 1231(a)(1)(B)(i), a removal order “shall become final upon the earlier of (i) a
determination by the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming such an order; or (ii) the expiration
of the period in which the alien is permitted to seek review of such order by the Board of
Immigration Appeals.” Id. § 1101(a)(47)(B); see Jusufi v. Chertoff, No. 07-15450, 2007 WL
4591760, at *4 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 28, 2007) (discussing that a final removal order becomes
administratively final when the BIA denies an appeal of it); see also Johnson v. Guzman Chavez,
594 U.S. 523, 534–35 (2021) (“[O]nce the BIA has reviewed [and affirmed] the [removal] order
(or the time for seeking the BIA’s review has expired), DHS is free to remove the alien unless a
court issues a stay. That reinforces why Congress included ‘administratively’ before the word
‘final’ in the first provision.”). Because Petitioner’s appeal to the BIA remains pending, § 1231
does not apply, and § 1226(a) governs Petitioner’s detention. See Johnson, 594 U.S. at 533 (“The
parties agree that § 1226 governs the detention of aliens until § 1231’s ‘removal period’ begins.”).
Case 1:26-cv-01182-HYJ-SJB ECF No. 14, PageID.<pageID> Filed 06/01/26 Page 4
of 5

5
IV. 	Discussion
In Petitioner’s § 2241 petition, as relief, Petitioner asks the Court to order Respondents to
release Petitioner or order Respondents to conduct a bond hearing to satisfy the requirements of
due process. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.16.) Prior to initiating this action, however, Petitioner had
a § 1226 bond hearing in the Cleveland Immigration Court, and the immigration judge issued a
written decision denying Petitioner’s request for bond on June 3, 2025. (June 3, 2025, Order
Immigration Judge, ECF No. 6-3, PageID.48.)
Although Petitioner argues that his detention generally violates the Due Process Clause of
the Fifth Amendment, Petitioner does not raise any constitutional claims regarding the June 2025
bond hearing. (See generally Pet., ECF No. 1.) And, in his reply, Petitioner concedes that he had
a bond hearing on June 3, 2025. (Reply, ECF No. 9, PageID.88.) Under these circumstances,
because Petitioner received a § 1226 bond hearing and Petitioner does not raise any claims
regarding the June 3, 2025, bond hearing itself in the present action, the Court will dismiss the
action without prejudice as moot.5
Conclusion
For the reasons discussed above, the Court will enter a judgment dismissing Petitioner’s
petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 without prejudice.
Dated: June 1, 2026 	/s/ Hala Y. Jarbou
HALA Y. JARBOU
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
5 Petitioner is free to challenge the constitutionality of the bond hearing or his continued detention;
however, any such challenges would raise new claims that are not presently before the Court.
Further, the Court’s resolution of this action moots Respondents’ pending motion to dismiss.
Case 1:26-cv-01182-HYJ-SJB ECF No. 14, PageID.<pageID> Filed 06/01/26 Page 5
of 5