Diaz Chasoy v. Raycraft et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
______
JUNIUSKA DIAZ CHASOY,
Petitioner,
v.
KEVIN RAYCRAFT et al.,
Respondents.
____________________________/
Case No. 1:26-cv-1676
Honorable Jane M. Beckering
OPINION
Petitioner, a United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detainee, initiated
this action by filing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Pet., ECF
No. 1.) The Court will grant Petitioner leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The habeas petition
challenges the lawfulness of Petitioner’s 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.
(Id., PageID.25.)
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 and other relief requested by Petitioner should
not be granted. (Order, ECF No. 4.) Respondents filed their response on June 9, 2026, (ECF No. 5.)
Petitioner filed a reply on June 15, 2026. (ECF No. 6.) After reviewing the parties’ submissions,
the Court concludes that the petition is properly dismissed without prejudice.
Case 1:26-cv-01676-JMB-PJG ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 06/23/26 Page 1
of 4

2
Discussion
I. 	Relevant Factual Background
Petitioner is a native and citizen of Venezuela. (Notice to Appear, ECF No. 5-1,
PageID.50.) Petitioner entered the United States on April 12, 2023, as “a nonimmigrant B-2, visitor
for pleasure” with authorization to remain in the United States until October 9, 2023, and Petitioner
has remained in the United States since her initial entry. (See id.) On April 30, 2026, ICE arrested
Petitioner. (See Form I-286, ECF No. 5-2.) Respondents indicate that “[o]n May 4, 2026, Petitioner
filed a custody redetermination request, and a hearing was scheduled for May 12, 2026. She
appeared at the hearing pro se and withdrew the custody request to hire an attorney.” (Resp., ECF
No. 5, PageID.42 (citing Ex. C, Case Portal Entries).) Respondents further indicate that “[t]he
hearing was rescheduled for May 28, 2026, at which time Petitioner again withdrew the custody
redetermination request.”1 (Id.) Respondents state that “DHS will not oppose Petitioner’s request
for another bond hearing if she requests one.” (Id., PageID.42 n.2.)
II. 	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-
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).
1 Petitioner’s petition and reply do not present any claims regarding Petitioner’s withdrawals of
her bond hearing requests. (See Pet., ECF No. 1; Reply, ECF No. 6.)
Case 1:26-cv-01676-JMB-PJG ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 06/23/26 Page 2
of 4

3
“Under Article III of the United States Constitution, federal courts have the power to
adjudicate only ‘Cases’ and ‘Controversies.’” Cal. Palms Addiction Recovery Campus, Inc. v.
United States, 158 F.4th 726, 730 (6th Cir. 2025) (quoting Mokdad v. Sessions, 876 F.3d 167, 169
(6th Cir. 2017)). “Part of what Article III requires is that there be a live case or controversy—
‘when the issues presented are no longer live or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the
outcome,’ a case becomes moot.” Id. (some internal quotations omitted) (citation omitted). “When
the 	case-and-controversy 	requirement 	is 	not 	satisfied, 	federal 	courts 	lack 	subject-matter
jurisdiction.” Id. (citing Mokdad, 876 F.3d at 170.)
III. 	Discussion
Noncitizens “who are held in custody under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), while their petitions for
review of their removal orders are pending, are entitled to a bond hearing before an immigration
judge.” Leonardo v. Crawford, 646 F.3d 1157, 1160 (9th Cir. 2011) (citation omitted); Lopez-
Campos v. Raycraft, 175 F.4th 713 (6th Cir. 2026).
As set forth above, Petitioner has not yet had a bond hearing pursuant to § 1226(a) because
she withdrew her prior requests for such a hearing. In Respondents’ response, they concede that,
if requested, Petitioner would receive a § 1226(a) bond hearing. Under these circumstances, the
Court will dismiss this action without prejudice.2
2 If contrary to Respondents’ concession in their brief, when Petitioner requests a bond hearing in
Immigration Court, Respondents do not in fact provide Petitioner with a § 1226(a) bond hearing
where the Immigration Judge concludes that he or she has jurisdiction to consider the bond request,
then Petitioner would be free to file a new § 2241 petition requesting that this Court order
Respondents to provide Petitioner with a § 1226(a) bond hearing.
Case 1:26-cv-01676-JMB-PJG ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 06/23/26 Page 3
of 4

4
Conclusion
For the reasons discussed above, the Court will enter a Judgment dismissing the petition
for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 without prejudice.
Dated: 	June 23, 2026 	/s/ Jane M. Beckering
Jane M. Beckering
United States District Judge
Case 1:26-cv-01676-JMB-PJG ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 06/23/26 Page 4
of 4