Becerra-Fernandez v. Raycraft et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
______
CHRISTIAN ALBERTO BECERRA-
FERNANDEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
KEVIN RAYCRAFT et al.,
Respondents.
,____________________________/
Case No. 1:26-cv-1258
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 conditionally grant Petitioner’s petition
for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
I. 	Procedural History
In Petitioner’s § 2241 petition, Petitioner challenges the constitutionality of his current
detention following a December 18, 2025, order issued by the Detroit Immigration Court denying
his bond, and asks the Court to, inter alia, issue a writ of habeas corpus 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. (Pet., ECF No. 1,
PageID.7.)
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 and other relief requested by Petitioner should
Case 1:26-cv-01258-JMB-PJG ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 06/08/26 Page 1
of 4

2
not be granted. (Order, ECF No. 4.) Respondents filed their response on April 27, 2026, (ECF No.
5), and a recording of the December 18, 2025, bond hearing on April 27, 2026. (Recording of Dec.
18, 2025, Bond Hearing, filed on Apr. 27, 2026.) Petitioner filed his reply on April 30, 2026,
(ECF No. 6).
II. 	Relevant Factual Background
Petitioner is a native and citizen of the Venezuela who entered the United States in 2023.
(Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.4; Resp., ECF No. 5, PageID.15.) On July 30, 2025, ICE arrested and
detained Petitioner while at an immigration court hearing. (Id.)
On November 16, 2025, Petitioner filed a § 2241 petition challenging his initial detention
without a bond hearing in Becerra-Fernandez v. Lynch (Becerra-Fernandez I), No. 1:25-cv-1464
(W.D. Mich.). In Becerra-Fernandez 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. &
J., Becerra-Fernandez I, (W.D. Mich. Dec. 12, 2025), (ECF Nos. 7, 8.).
On December 18, 2025, Petitioner received a bond hearing pursuant to § 1226(a). (Pet.,
ECF No. 1, PageID.4; Bond Order, ECF No. 5-1, PageID.26.) During the hearing, the government
argued that Petitioner failed to meet his burden to prove that he is not a flight risk. (Recording of
Dec. 18, 2025, Bond Hearing, filed on Apr. 27, 2026, 04:28–05:24.) In denying Petitioner’s request
for bond, the immigration judge explained, “there was not a lot of evidence presented of
community ties,” or “strong family ties in the United States,” and no evidence of employment
records” or “that [Petitioner] paid taxes.” (Id., 05:25–05:58.) The immigration judge then entered
a written order denying Petitioner’s request for bond, stating:
Denied because[:]
Case 1:26-cv-01258-JMB-PJG ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 06/08/26 Page 2
of 4

3
flight risk.
(Bond Order, ECF No. 5-1, PageID.26.)
On March 10, 2026, the Detroit Immigration Court ordered Petitioner to be removed to
Venezuela. (Removal Order, ECF No. 5-3, PageID.34.) Petitioner filed his appeal with the Board
of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which remains pending. See EOIR Automated Case Information,
https://acis.eoir.justice.gov/en/ (enter “A-Number” 245304160; enter “Nationality,” Venezuela,
select “Submit”) (last accessed June 8, 2026).
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, 817 F. Supp. 3d 612 (W.D. Mich. 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.
V. 	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.
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,
Case 1:26-cv-01258-JMB-PJG ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 06/08/26 Page 3
of 4

4
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. (ECF No. 1.) 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 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
June 8, 2026 /s/ Jane M. Beckering
Case 1:26-cv-01258-JMB-PJG ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 06/08/26 Page 4
of 4