Ahmed Babou v. Raycraft et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
______
AHMED BABOU ABDELLAHI,
Petitioner,
v.
KEVIN RAYCRAFT et al.,
Respondents.
____________________________/
Case No. 1:26-cv-1236
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, he 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 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.27.) In an order entered on April 22, 2026, the Court directed
Respondents to show cause, within three business days, why the writ of habeas corpus should not
Case 1:26-cv-01236-JMB-SJB ECF No. 8, PageID.<pageID> Filed 05/04/26 Page 1
of 4

2
be granted. (Order, ECF No. 5.) Respondents filed their response and a recording of the January
13, 2026, bond hearing on April 27, 2026, (Resp., ECF No. 6; Recording of Bond Hearing, filed
on Apr. 27, 2026), and Petitioner filed his reply on April 28, 2026, (ECF No. 7).
II. Factual Background
Petitioner is a citizen of Mauritania who entered the United States in 2024. (Notice to
Appear (NTA), ECF No. 1-5, PageID.44.) On or about December 3, 2025, Petitioner was arrested
by ICE agents. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.9.)
On January 13, 2026, Petitioner received a bond hearing. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.11.) In
anticipation of that hearing, Petitioner submitted evidence in support of his request for bond,
“including a letter and supporting financial documentation of the sponsor, and one character letter
from a US citizen friend, also from Mauritania.” (Id.) “The Department submitted only a negative
CFI worksheet prepared by DHS . . .” (Id.) At the conclusion of the January 13, 2026, hearing, the
immigration judge denied Petitioner’s request for bond, stating:
The Department of Homeland Security has proven by a preponderance of the
evidence that the Respondent is a flight risk and there are no conditions or
combination of conditions that would reasonably assure the future appearances of
the Respondent at immigration proceedings.
(Immigration Judge Order, ECF No. 1-7, PageID.51.)
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,
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.
Case 1:26-cv-01236-JMB-SJB ECF No. 8, PageID.<pageID> Filed 05/04/26 Page 2
of 4

3
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.
V. Proper Respondents
Respondents argue that the Detroit ICE Field Office Director is the only proper Respondent
in this action, and they seek the dismissal of all 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. 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 a hearing or release will bind at least one
Respondent with authority to act in the event that Petitioner is transferred out of the Western
District of Michigan, the Court will retain the ICE Detroit Field Office Director, the Acting
Director of ICE, and the Secretary for the Department of Homeland Security as Respondents.
Conclusion
The Court will order Respondents to provide Petitioner with an individualized bond
hearing before an 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
Case 1:26-cv-01236-JMB-SJB ECF No. 8, PageID.<pageID> Filed 05/04/26 Page 3
of 4

4
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 4, 2026 /s/ Jane M. Beckering
Jane M. Beckering
United States District Judge
Case 1:26-cv-01236-JMB-SJB ECF No. 8, PageID.<pageID> Filed 05/04/26 Page 4
of 4