Ghabesha v. Raycraft et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
______
EBRAHIM ABDULMALEK ABDU
GHABESHA,
Petitioner,
v.
KEVIN RAYCRAFT et al.,
Respondents.
____________________________/
Case No. 1:26-cv-1351
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 deny Petitioner’s petition for a writ of
habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 without prejudice.
I. 	Procedural History
In Petitioner’s § 2241 petition, Petitioner 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 ordering Respondents to release Petitioner or
that the Court 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.14–16.)
In an order entered on April 29, 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-01351-JMB-RSK ECF No. 9, PageID.<pageID> Filed 05/08/26 Page 1
of 3

2
not be granted. (Order, ECF No. 6.) Respondents filed their response and a recording of the January
8, 2026, bond hearing on April 30, 2026, (Resp., ECF No. 7; Recording of Jan. 8, 2026, Bond
Hearing, filed on Apr. 30, 2026), and Petitioner filed his reply on May 1, 2026, (ECF No. 8).
II. 	Relevant Factual Background
Petitioner “is a citizen of Yemen who was born in Qatar.” (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.5.) On
December 12, 2025, ICE arrested Petitioner. (Id., PageID.6.)
On March 11, 2026, in Ghabesha v. Dunbar (Ghabesha I), No. 1:26-cv-795 (W.D. Mich.),
Petitioner filed a § 2241 petition challenging the constitutionality of the Immigration Court’s
January 8, 2026, bond denial. In Ghabesha I, the Court denied Petitioner’s petition without
prejudice because “while the immigration judge used an improper burden of proof in reaching the
flight-risk finding, the immigration judge used the proper burden of proof in finding Petitioner was
a danger to the community.” Op. & Jud., Ghabesha I, (W.D. Mich. Apr. 23, 2026), (ECF Nos. 8,
9).
III. 	Discussion
In Petitioner’s present § 2241 petition, Petitioner again requests that the Court review the
immigration judge’s decision to deny Petitioner’s request for bond following the January 8, 2026,
bond hearing in Immigration Court. (Pet., ECF No. 1.) Petitioner asserted essentially the same
arguments in Ghabesha I. Pet., Ghabesha I, (W.D. Mich. Mar. 11, 2026), (ECF No. 1). As
addressed by the Court in Ghabesha I, “Respondent must prove by clear and convincing evidence
either that Petitioner is a flight risk or that Petitioner is a danger to the community for Petitioner
not to receive bond,” and following the January 8, 2026, bond hearing, “the immigration judge
used the proper burden of proof in finding Petitioner was a danger to the community.” Op.,
Ghabesha I, (W.D. Mich. Apr. 23, 2026), (ECF No. 8, PageID.252) (emphasis in original).
Case 1:26-cv-01351-JMB-RSK ECF No. 9, PageID.<pageID> Filed 05/08/26 Page 2
of 3

3
Therefore, for the same reasons set forth in the Court’s opinion in Ghabesha I, the Court will deny
Petitioner’s § 2241 petition without prejudice.
Conclusion
For the reasons discussed above, the Court will enter a judgment denying Petitioner’s
petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 without prejudice.
Dated: 	May 8, 2026 	/s/ Jane M. Beckering
Jane M. Beckering
United States District Judge
Case 1:26-cv-01351-JMB-RSK ECF No. 9, PageID.<pageID> Filed 05/08/26 Page 3
of 3