Contreras et al v. Raycraft et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
______
JOHANA ARACELY CONTRERAS,
Petitioner,
v.
KEVIN RAYCRAFT et al.,
Respondents.
____________________________/
Case No. 1:26-cv-1264
Honorable Paul L. Maloney
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. § 2241.1 (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.
Discussion
I. 	Procedural History
In Petitioner’s § 2241 petition, Petitioner challenges the lawfulness of her current detention
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 from custody. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.7.)
In an order entered on April 24, 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
1 Petitioner was one of thirteen petitioners named in the § 2241 petition. In an order entered on
April 22, 2026, the Court severed the claims of the petitioners into thirteen separate actions. (Order,
ECF No. 4.) Petitioner’s claims proceed in the present action.
Case 1:26-cv-01264-PLM-PJG ECF No. 10, PageID.<pageID> Filed 05/19/26 Page 1
of 5

2
not be granted. (Order, ECF No. 5.) Respondents filed their response on April 29, 2026, (ECF
No. 6), and Petitioner filed her reply on May 11, 2026, (ECF No. 9).
II. 	Factual Background
Petitioner is a native and citizen of Honduras. (Notice to Appear (NTA), ECF No. 6-1,
PageID.104.) Petitioner entered the United States on December 10, 2020, at an unknown location
without inspection. (Id.; Letter from Petitioner, ECF No. 9-3, PageID.142.) On March 27, 2025,
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) agents encountered and arrested Petitioner. (Form I-213,
ECF No. 6-2, PageID.108–110.) At that time, DHS issued Petitioner a Form I-862, NTA, charging
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. 6-1, PageID.104.) Thereafter, Petitioner filed an application
for asylum and withholding of removal. (Form I-213, ECF No. 6-2, PageID.111.)
On May 28, 2025, an Immigration Judge at the Cleveland Immigration Court entered an
order denying Petitioner’s request for a custody redetermination. (May 2025 Order Immigration
Judge, ECF No. 6-5, PageID.117.) The Immigration Judge determined that Petitioner was a danger
to the community because “[t]here is an Interpol warning for this [Petitioner] who was charged in
Honduras with procuring prostitution and illicit trafficking.” (Id.) The immigration Judge also had
“grave concerns that this [Petitioner] is a flight risk with this Interpol warning outstanding while
in removal proceedings in the United States.” (Id.)
On September 4, 2025, an Immigration Judge at the Cleveland Immigration Court entered
an order denying Petitioner’s application for asylum and withholding of removal and ordered that
Petitioner be removed from the United States to Honduras. (Sept. 2025 Order Immigration Judge,
ECF No. 6-6, PageID.119–122.) Petitioner filed an appeal of that order with the Board of
Case 1:26-cv-01264-PLM-PJG ECF No. 10, PageID.<pageID> Filed 05/19/26 Page 2
of 5

3
Immigration Appeals (BIA), and that appeal remains pending. (Automated Case Information, ECF
No. 6-7, PageID.124.) Because Petitioner’s appeal to the BIA remains pending, Petitioner’s order
of 	removal 	is 	not 	“administratively 	final” 	for 	purposes 	of 	the 	INA.2 	See 	8 	U.S.C.
§§ 1101(a)(47)(B), 1231(a)(1)(B)(i), 1231(a)(2)(A). There is no indication in the record before the
Court that Petitioner is currently scheduled for a hearing in Immigration Court.
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).
2 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).
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-01264-PLM-PJG ECF No. 10, PageID.<pageID> Filed 05/19/26 Page 3
of 5

4
“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.)
IV. 	Analysis
In Petitioner’s § 2241 petition, as relief, Petitioner asks the Court to order Respondents to
release Petitioner from custody. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.7; Reply, ECF No. 9, PageID.132.) Prior
to initiating this action, Petitioner had a bond hearing in the Cleveland Immigration Court, and the
immigration judge issued a written decision denying Petitioner’s request for bond on May 28,
2025. (May 2025 Order Immigration Judge, ECF No. 6-5.)
Although in the present § 2241 petition, Petitioner argues that her detention generally
violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, Petitioner does not raise any
constitutional claims regarding the May 2025 bond hearing. (See generally Reply, ECF No. 9.)
Under these circumstances, because Petitioner received a bond hearing and Petitioner does not
raise any claims regarding the bond hearing itself in the present action, it appears that the present
§ 2241 petition is moot. Therefore, the Court will dismiss the action without prejudice.3
3 Petitioner is free to challenge the nature of the bond hearing; however, any such challenge raises
new claims that were not raised in Petitioner’s original § 2241 petition and which are not presently
before the Court. If Petitioner wishes to file a new § 2241 petition raising claims regarding the
May 2025 bond hearing, Petitioner may do so by filing a new action with the applicable filing fee
or an application to proceed in forma pauperis.
Case 1:26-cv-01264-PLM-PJG ECF No. 10, PageID.<pageID> Filed 05/19/26 Page 4
of 5

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: 	May 19, 2026 	/s/ Paul L. Maloney
Paul L. Maloney
United States District Judge
Case 1:26-cv-01264-PLM-PJG ECF No. 10, PageID.<pageID> Filed 05/19/26 Page 5
of 5