Kumar v. Putra et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
______
RAGHAV PARMOD KUMAR,
Petitioner,
v.
MATTHEW PUTRA et al.,
Respondents.
____________________________/
Case No. 1:26-cv-2633
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 writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
(Pet., ECF No. 1.) For the following reasons, the Court will deny Petitioner’s petition for a writ of
habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 without prejudice.
I. 	Procedural History
In Petitioner’s § 2241 petition, Petitioner 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 ordering Respondents to release Petitioner.
(Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.19–20.)
In an order entered on September 25, 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 and a recording of the
May 15, 2026, bond hearing on September 30, 2026. (Resp., ECF No. 5; Recording of May 15,
Case 1:26-cv-02633-JMB-RSK ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/13/26 Page 1
of 3

2
2026, Bond Hearing, filed on Sept. 30, 2026.) Petitioner filed his reply on October 5, 2026.
(ECF No. 6.)
II. 	Relevant Factual Background
Petitioner is a citizen of India who has been in immigration detention since November 24,
2025. Kumar v. Raycraft (Kumar I), No. 1:26-cv-1305 (W.D. Mich.), (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.5.)
On April 22, 2026, Petitioner filed a § 2241 petition challenging his initial detention
without a bond hearing in Kumar I. (See id., ECF No. 1.) 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., Kumar I, (W.D. Mich. May 11, 2026), (ECF Nos. 6,
7).
On May 15, 2026, Petitioner received a bond hearing pursuant to § 1226(a). (Resp., ECF
No. 5, PageID.41.) At the conclusion of the May 15, 2026, hearing, in a written order, the
Immigration Judge denied Petitioner’s request for bond, stating: “No bond. Respondent is a flight
risk. Respondent has a removal order pending before the BIA.” (Immigration Judge Order, ECF
No. 5-2, PageID.58.)
III. 	Discussion
In Petitioner’s § 2241 petition, Petitioner argues that the Immigration Judge did not apply
the constitutionally required burden of proof at Petitioner’s § 1226(a) bond hearing on May 15,
2026. Specifically, Petitioner argues that the Immigration Judge failed to require the government
to demonstrate dangerousness or flight risk by clear and convincing evidence. See Soto-Medina v.
Lynch, 817 F. Supp. 3d 612 (W.D. Mich. 2026) (addressing the constitutionally required burden
of proof).
Case 1:26-cv-02633-JMB-RSK ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/13/26 Page 2
of 3

3
Based on the record before the Court at this time, including the recording of the § 1226(a)
bond hearing, there is no indication in the record that the Immigration Judge applied an
unconstitutional burden of proof at the bond hearing. Under these circumstances, the Court will
deny Petitioner’s § 2241 petition without prejudice.
Conclusion
For the reasons discussed above, the Court will enter a judgment denying Petitioner’s
petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 without prejudice.
Dated:
Jane M. Beckering
United States District Judge
October 13, 2026 /s/ Jane M. Beckering
Case 1:26-cv-02633-JMB-RSK ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/13/26 Page 3
of 3