Ceron Valles v. Raycraft et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
______
HECTOR CERON VALLES,
Petitioner,
v.
KEVIN RAYCRAFT et al.,
Respondents.
____________________________/
Case No. 1:26-cv-1652
Honorable Jane M. Beckering
OPINION
Petitioner, a United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detainee 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
community. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.15.)
In an Order entered on June 4, 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. 3.)
Case 1:26-cv-01652-JMB-SJB ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 06/15/26 Page 1
of 3

2
Respondents filed their response and a recording of the May 11, 2026, bond hearing on June 4,
2026, (Resp., ECF No. 4; Recording of May 11, 2026, Bond Hearing, filed on June 4, 2026), and
Petitioner filed his reply on June 9, 2026, (ECF No. 5).
II. 	Relevant Factual Background
On April 24, 2026, Petitioner filed a § 2241 petition challenging his initial detention
without a bond hearing in Ceron Valles v. Raycraft (Ceron Valles I), No. 1:26-cv-1337 (W.D.
Mich.). In Ceron Valles 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., Ceron
Valles I, (W.D. Mich. May 6, 2026), (ECF Nos. 6, 7).
On May 11, 2026, Petitioner received a bond hearing pursuant to § 1226(a). (May 11, 2026,
Order Immigration Judge, ECF No. 1-1, PageID.19.) At the conclusion of the May 11, 2026,
hearing, the immigration judge denied Petitioner’s request for bond because Petitioner “has failed
to show he is not a danger.” (Id.)
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.1 The Court has fully addressed these issues and Respondents’ arguments in Soto-
1 Respondents also argue that Petitioner’s § 2241 petition is moot because on June 3, 2026, the
Immigration Court denied Petitioner’s request for “Cancellation of Removal for Nonpermanent
Residents under INA § 240A(b)(1),” Petitioner withdrew his asylum application, and Petitioner
agreed to voluntarily depart the United States. (Resp., ECF No. 4, PageID.26; June 3, 2026 Order
Immigration Judge, ECF No. 4-1.) However, Petitioner has until July 7, 2026, to appeal the
Immigration Court’s order to the Board of Immigration Appeals. (See June 3, 2026 Order
Case 1:26-cv-01652-JMB-SJB ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 06/15/26 Page 2
of 3

3
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.
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 15, 2026 	/s/ Jane M. Beckering
Jane M. Beckering
United States District Judge
Immigration Judge, ECF No. 4-1, PageID.34.) Under these circumstances, based on the record
before the Court, the Court concludes that Petitioner’s § 2241 petition is not moot at this time.
Case 1:26-cv-01652-JMB-SJB ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 06/15/26 Page 3
of 3