Ho v. Raycraft et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
______
TUYEN T. HO,
Petitioner,
v.
KEVIN RAYCRAFT et al.,
Respondents.
____________________________/
Case No. 1:26-cv-1469
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. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.24–25.) In an Order entered on May 5, 2026, the Court
directed Respondents to show cause, within three business days, why the writ of habeas corpus
Case 1:26-cv-01469-JMB-PJG ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 05/28/26 Page 1
of 3

2
should not be granted. (Order, ECF No. 4.) Respondents filed their response on May 8, 2026,1
(Resp., ECF No. 5), and Petitioner filed his reply on May 14, 2026, (ECF No. 6).
II. 	Factual Background
Petitioner is a citizen of Vietnam who entered the United States in 2009 pursuant to an F1
student visa. (Notice to Appear (NTA), ECF No. 5-1, PageID.80.) On March 10, 2026, Petitioner
was arrested by ICE. (Form I-213, ECF No. 5-2, PageID.87.)
On March 30, 2026, Petitioner received a bond hearing pursuant to § 1226(a). (Resp., ECF
No. 5, PageID.43.) At the conclusion of the March 30, 2026, hearing, the Immigration Judge
denied Petitioner’s request for bond because Petitioner “failed to meet his burden of demonstrating
he [wa]s not a flight risk.” (Id.)
III. 	Analysis
Petitioner argues that the March 30, 2026, bond hearing was constitutionally deficient. For
the reasons set forth in Soto-Medina v. Lynch, 817 F. Supp. 3d 612 (W.D. Mich. 2026), 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.
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
1 Respondents did not file a transcript or a recording of the bond hearing, as required by the Court’s
order to show cause. (Order, ECF No. 4, PageID.40.)
Case 1:26-cv-01469-JMB-PJG ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 05/28/26 Page 2
of 3

3
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: 	May 28, 2026 	/s/ Jane M. Beckering
Jane M. Beckering
United States District Judge
Case 1:26-cv-01469-JMB-PJG ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 05/28/26 Page 3
of 3