Paz v. Raycraft et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
______
YARLIS C. PAZ,
Petitioner,
v.
KEVIN RAYCRAFT et al.,
Respondents.
____________________________/
Case No. 1:26-cv-1586
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, she challenges the constitutionality of her current detention
following an order issued by the Detroit Immigration Court denying her 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.17.) In an Order entered on May 18, 2026, the Court
directed Respondents to show cause, within three business days, why the writ of habeas corpus
should not be granted. (Order, ECF No. 4.) Respondents filed their response and a recording of the
March 11, 2026 bond hearing on May 21, 2026, (Resp., ECF No. 5; Recording of Mar. 11, 2026
Case 1:26-cv-01586-JMB-MV ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 06/02/26 Page 1
of 3

2
Bond Hearing, filed on May 21, 2026), and Petitioner filed her reply on May 27, 2026, (ECF No.
6).
II. 	Factual Background
Petitioner is a citizen of Venezuela who entered the United States in 2023. (Pet., ECF No. 1,
PageID.8.) On November 2, 2025, Petitioner was arrested by ICE.
On February 15, 2026, Petitioner filed a § 2241 petition challenging her initial detention
without a bond hearing in Paz v. Raycraft (Paz I), No. 1:26-cv-513 (W.D. Mich.). In Paz 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. & Jud., Paz I, (W.D. Mich. Mar. 4, 2026), (ECF
Nos. 6, 7).
On March 11, 2026, Petitioner received a bond hearing pursuant to § 1226(a). (Pet., ECF
No. 1, PageID.4.) At the conclusion of the bond hearing, the immigration judge (IJ) denied
Petitioner’s request for bond because Petitioner “failed to show she is not a flight risk.” (Order of
the IJ, ECF No. 1-2, PageID.22.)
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.
Case 1:26-cv-01586-JMB-MV ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 06/02/26 Page 2
of 3

3
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
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: 	June 2, 2026 	/s/ Jane M. Beckering
Jane M. Beckering
United States District Judge
Case 1:26-cv-01586-JMB-MV ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 06/02/26 Page 3
of 3