Mireles-Cerda v. Raycraft et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
______
SERGIO MIRELES-CERDA,
Petitioner,
v.
KEVIN RAYCRAFT et al.,
Respondents.
____________________________/
Case No. 1:26-cv-1602
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 or 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
Case 1:26-cv-01602-JMB-RSK ECF No. 8, PageID.<pageID> Filed 06/04/26 Page 1
of 4

2
community. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.15-16.)1 In an Order entered on May 22, 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. 5.) Respondents filed their response and a recording of the
April 7, 2026, bond hearing on May 27, 2026, (Resp., ECF No. 6; Recording of April 7, 2026,
Bond Hearing, filed on May 27, 2026), and Petitioner filed his reply on May 28, 2026, (ECF No.
7).
II. 	Factual Background
Petitioner is a citizen of Mexico who entered the United States in 2020. (Pet., ECF No. 1,
PageID.6.) On March 3, 2026, ICE arrested Petitioner when Petitioner reported for an immigration
appointment. (Id., PageID.8-9.)
On March 16, 2026, Petitioner filed a § 2241 petition challenging his initial detention
without a bond hearing in Mireles-Cerda v. Dunbar (Mireles-Cerda I), No. 1:26-cv-840 (W.D.
Mich.). In Mireles-Cerda 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.,
Mireles-Cerda I, (W.D. Mich. April 1, 2026), (ECF Nos. 10, 11).
1 In addition to filing the § 2241 petition, Petitioner filed an emergency motion in this action,
seeking expedited review of the case, a temporary restraining order restricting Respondents from
taking certain actions during the pendency of the action, and immediate release. (ECF No. 2.) As
set forth in this opinion, the Court will conditionally grant Petitioner’s § 2241 petition and order
Respondents to 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. In light of this, the entry of the
Court’s opinion and corresponding judgment moots Petitioner’s motion.
Case 1:26-cv-01602-JMB-RSK ECF No. 8, PageID.<pageID> Filed 06/04/26 Page 2
of 4

3
On April 7, 2026, Petitioner received a bond hearing pursuant to § 1226(a). (Pet., ECF No.
1, PageID.8.) At the conclusion of the April 7, 2026, hearing, the immigration judge denied
Petitioner’s request for bond because “the bond record fails to demonstrate the Respondent is not
a flight risk. The Court finds the Respondent is a flight risk and that no monetary bond would
mitigate any risk of flight.” Imm. Judge Order, Mireles-Cerda I, (W.D. Mich. Apr. 9, 2026), (ECF
No. 13-1, PageID.134).
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.
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.
Case 1:26-cv-01602-JMB-RSK ECF No. 8, PageID.<pageID> Filed 06/04/26 Page 3
of 4

4
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 4, 2026 	/s/ Jane M. Beckering
Jane M. Beckering
United States District Judge
Case 1:26-cv-01602-JMB-RSK ECF No. 8, PageID.<pageID> Filed 06/04/26 Page 4
of 4