Suazo Ortiz v. Raycraft et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
______
NORMA SUAZO ORTIZ,
Petitioner,
v.
KEVIN RAYCRAFT et al.,
Respondents.
____________________________/
Case No. 1:26-cv-1553
Honorable Robert J. Jonker
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 pro se 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 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. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.7.)
In an order entered on May 12, 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
not be granted. (Order, ECF No. 4.) Respondents filed their response on May 14, 2026. (ECF
No. 6.)
Case 1:26-cv-01553-RJJ-MV ECF No. 8, PageID.<pageID> Filed 06/02/26 Page 1
of 4

2
II. Factual Background
Petitioner is a native and citizen of Honduras. (Notice to Appear (NTA), ECF No. 6-1,
PageID.26.) Petitioner entered the United States on or about June 14, 2019, at an unknown location
without inspection. (Id.) After Petitioner entered the United States, Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) agents encountered Petitioner, and thereafter, DHS issued Petitioner a Form I-862,
NTA, charging Petitioner with inadmissibility under §§ 212(a)(6)(A)(i) and 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(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,” and “who, at the time of application
for admission, is not in possession of a valid unexpired [immigration or travel document].” (Id.;
2019 Form I-213, ECF No. 6-2, PageID.30.) DHS then released Petitioner into the United States
on her own recognizance. (Resp., ECF No. 6, PageID.20.)
On October 28, 2025, Petitioner was arrested by ICE. (2025 Form I-213, ECF No. 6-3,
PageID.34–35.) On May 11, 2026, the Detroit Immigration Court entered a joint stipulated request
for removal and waiver of hearing filed by the parties and ordered that Petitioner be removed to
Honduras. (Order Immigration Judge, ECF No. 6-4, PageID.37–38.) The order also noted that both
parties had waived the right to appeal that order. (Id., PageID.37.)
III. Habeas Corpus 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-
Case 1:26-cv-01553-RJJ-MV ECF No. 8, PageID.<pageID> Filed 06/02/26 Page 2
of 4

3
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).
IV. Merits Discussion
Respondents present evidence that indicates Petitioner received an order of removal to
Honduras on May 11, 2026, and that Petitioner waived the right to appeal that order to the Board
of Immigration Appeals (BIA). (Order Immigration Judge, ECF No. 6-4, PageID.37.) Respondents
argue that Petitioner is subject to an administratively final order of removal and that she is properly
detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1231.
Section 1231 provides that “when an alien is ordered removed, the Attorney General shall
remove the alien from the United States within a period of 90 days (in this section referred to as
the ‘removal period’).” 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1)(A). “During the removal period, the Attorney
General shall detain the alien.” Id. § 1231(a)(2)(A). “The removal period begins on the latest of
the following: (i) the date the order of removal becomes administratively final. (ii) If the removal
order is judicially reviewed and if a court orders a stay of the removal of the alien, the date of the
court’s final order. (iii) If the alien is detained or confined (except under an immigration process),
the date the alien is released from detention or confinement.” Id. § 1231(a)(1)(B)(i)–(iii). An order
of removal “shall become final upon the earlier of . . . a determination by the Board of Immigration
Appeals affirming such order; or . . . 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)(i)–(ii).
Here, as noted above, Petitioner received an order of removal on May 11, 2026, and
Petitioner waived her right to appeal that order to the BIA. (Order Immigration Judge, ECF
No. 6-4, PageID.37.) Therefore, Petitioner’s order of removal became final when it was entered
on May 11, 2026. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(47)(B)(i)–(ii). Furthermore, there is no indication in the
record before the Court that Petitioner’s removal order is the subject of judicial review, see id.
Case 1:26-cv-01553-RJJ-MV ECF No. 8, PageID.<pageID> Filed 06/02/26 Page 3
of 4

4
§ 1231(a)(1)(B)(ii), or that Petitioner was detained or confined for any reason other than under an
immigration process after May 11, 2026, see id. § 1231(a)(1)(B)(iii). Therefore, Petitioner’s
removal period began on May 11, 2026. See id. § 1231(a)(1)(B). Because the 90-day removal
period has not expired, at this time, Petitioner is properly detained pursuant to § 1231(a).
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: June 2, 2026 /s/ Robert J. Jonker
Robert J. Jonker
United States District Judge
Case 1:26-cv-01553-RJJ-MV ECF No. 8, PageID.<pageID> Filed 06/02/26 Page 4
of 4