Pacheco-Ascencio v. Raycraft et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
______
JOSE SAMUEL PACHECO-ASCENCIO,
Petitioner,
v.
KEVIN RAYCRAFT et al.,
Respondents.
____________________________/
Case No. 1:26-cv-289
Hon. Hala Y. Jarbou
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.
§ 2241.1 (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. Relevant Procedural History
In Petitioner’s § 2241 petition, Petitioner challenges the lawfulness of his current detention
and asks the Court to, inter alia, accept jurisdiction over this action and issue a writ of habeas
1 This action was initially filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan by five individuals detained by ICE, challenging the lawfulness of Petitioners’ current
detention. (Pet., ECF No. 1.) On December 29, 2025, the Eastern District of Michigan transferred
the claims of Petitioners Cuevas-Enciso, Pacheco-Ascencio, and Beltran-Ardon to this Court.
(Transfer Order, ECF No. 10.) Thereafter, pursuant to a stipulation by the parties, the Court
dismissed Petitioner Beltran-Ardon from this matter without prejudice. (Order, ECF No. 14.) The
Court then severed the claims of Petitioners Cuevas-Enciso and Pacheco-Ascencio. (Order, ECF
No. 15.) Petitioner Pacheco-Ascencio’s claims proceed in this case.
Case 1:26-cv-00289-HYJ-SJB ECF No. 17, PageID.<pageID> Filed 01/28/26 Page 1
of 6

2
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 ordering Respondents to release Petitioner or to conduct a
bond hearing for Petitioner’s removal proceedings. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.35–36.)
In an order entered on December 19, 2025, the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan directed Respondents to respond to the petition by December 29, 2025, and
directed Petitioner to file any reply within three business days of Respondents’ response. (Order,
ECF No. 7.) Respondents filed their response on December 29, 2025. (ECF No. 8.) That same day,
the Eastern District of Michigan transferred the claims of Petitioner to this Court. (Transfer Order,
ECF No. 10.) The following day, December 30, 2025, Petitioner filed his reply. (ECF No. 9.)
II. Factual Background
Petitioner is a native and citizen of El Salvador. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.7; Notice to
Appear (NTA), ECF No. 8-5, PageID.239.) Petitioner entered the United States in June 2005
without inspection. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.7, 16; NTA, ECF No. 8-2, PageID.239.) Prior to
Petitioner’s present detention, he resided in Michigan with his common-law spouse, a lawful
permanent resident, and three United States citizen children. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.16–17.)
Petitioner “is gainfully employed and has a stable home address that he shares with his family.”
(Id.)
On November 25, 2025, “while on his way to work,” Petitioner was stopped by ICE and
taken into custody. (Id.) At that time, ICE issued Petitioner a Form I-862, NTA, charging Petitioner
with inadmissibility under §§ 212(a)(6)(A)(i) and 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (INA) because Petitioner is an immigrant “present in the United States without
being admitted or paroled, or who arrived in the United States at any time or place other than as
designated by the Attorney General,” and “who, at the time of application for admission, is not in
possession of a valid unexpired [immigration or travel document].” (NTA, ECF No. 8-2,
Case 1:26-cv-00289-HYJ-SJB ECF No. 17, PageID.<pageID> Filed 01/28/26 Page 2
of 6

3
PageID.239, 242.) Petitioner is scheduled for a hearing on February 25, 2026, in the Detroit
Immigration Court. (Id., PageID.239.)
III. 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).
IV. Exhaustion
Respondents argue that the Court should deny Petitioner’s request for habeas corpus relief
because Petitioner has not exhausted his administrative remedies. Specifically, Respondents argue
that Petitioner should pursue a bond hearing and, if necessary, appeal any unfavorable decision to
the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). However, Respondents state that “the agency
acknowledges that petitioner[ is] ultimately unlikely to obtain the relief [he] seek[s] through the
administrative process based on a recent decision by the [BIA] in Matter of Yajure Hurtado.”
(Resp., ECF No. 8, PageID.206.)
The Court declines to enforce the doctrine of prudential exhaustion against Petitioner, and
even if the Court were to conclude that exhaustion is warranted, the Court concludes in the
alternative that waiver of exhaustion is appropriate, for the reasons set forth in the Court’s
exhaustion analysis in each of the following cases: Antele Cobix v. Raycraft, No. 1:25-cv-1669,
2025 WL 3562651, at *2–3 (W.D. Mich. Dec. 12, 2025); Candela Bastidas v. Noem, No. 1:25-cv-
1528, 2025 WL 3562638, at *2–4 (W.D. Mich. Dec. 12, 2025); Acuna Sanchez v. Noem, No. 1:25-
Case 1:26-cv-00289-HYJ-SJB ECF No. 17, PageID.<pageID> Filed 01/28/26 Page 3
of 6

4
cv-1442, 2025 WL 3562577, at *2–4 (W.D. Mich. Dec. 12, 2025); Penagos Robles v. U.S. Dep’t
of Homeland Sec., No. 1:25-cv-1578, 2025 WL 3558128, at *2–3 (W.D. Mich. Dec. 12, 2025).
Accordingly, the Court will proceed to address the merits of Petitioner’s § 2241 petition.
V. Merits Discussion
A. Statutory Basis for Petitioner’s Detention
Petitioner contends that Respondents have violated the INA by concluding that Petitioner
is detained pursuant to the mandatory detention provisions set forth in 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2).
Respondents, however, contend that Petitioner meets every element for detention under
§ 1225(b)(2), and that the statute’s structure and history support Respondents’ interpretation.
The Court concludes that § 1226(a), not § 1225(b)(2)(A), governs noncitizens, such as
Petitioner, who have resided in the United States and were already within the United States when
apprehended and arrested for the reasons set forth in the Court’s statutory analysis in each of the
following cases: Antele Cobix v. Raycraft, No. 1:25-cv-1669, 2025 WL 3562651, at *3–6 (W.D.
Mich. Dec. 12, 2025); Candela Bastidas v. Noem, No. 1:25-cv-1528, 2025 WL 3562638, at *4–6
(W.D. Mich. Dec. 12, 2025); Acuna Sanchez v. Noem, No. 1:25-cv-1442, 2025 WL 3562577,
at *4–7 (W.D. Mich. Dec. 12, 2025); Penagos Robles v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., No. 1:25-
cv-1578, 2025 WL 3558128, at *3–6 (W.D. Mich. Dec. 12, 2025).
B. Fifth Amendment Due Process Considerations
Petitioner also argues that his detention violates the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process
Clause. Respondents counter Petitioner’s arguments by stating that Petitioner has received notice
of the charges against him, has access to counsel, is scheduled to attend hearings with an
immigration judge, has the right to appeal the denial of any request for bond, and has been detained
by ICE for a short period time.
Case 1:26-cv-00289-HYJ-SJB ECF No. 17, PageID.<pageID> Filed 01/28/26 Page 4
of 6

5
The Court concludes that Petitioner’s current detention under the mandatory detention
framework set forth in § 1225(b)(2)(A) violates Petitioner’s Fifth Amendment due process rights
for the reasons set forth in the Court’s constitutional analysis in each of the following cases:
Antele Cobix v. Raycraft, No. 1:25-cv-1669, 2025 WL 3562651, at *6–8 (W.D. Mich. Dec. 12,
2025); Candela Bastidas v. Noem, No. 1:25-cv-1528, 2025 WL 3562638, at *7–8 (W.D. Mich.
Dec. 12, 2025); Acuna Sanchez v. Noem, No. 1:25-cv-1442, 2025 WL 3562577, at *7–9 (W.D.
Mich. Dec. 12, 2025); Penagos Robles v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., No. 1:25-cv-1578, 2025
WL 3558128, at *6–8 (W.D. Mich. Dec. 12, 2025).
VI. 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.
VII. Proper Respondents
Respondents argue that the Warden of North Lake Processing Center or the Detroit ICE
Field Office Director are the only proper Respondents in this action, and they seek the dismissal
of the other named Respondents. The Court concludes that the Detroit ICE Field Office Director
is not the only proper Respondent for the reasons set forth in the Court’s analysis of the same
argument in each of the following cases: Antele Cobix v. Raycraft, No. 1:25-cv-1669, 2025 WL
3562651, at *8–9 (W.D. Mich. Dec. 12, 2025); Candela Bastidas v. Noem, No. 1:25-cv-1528,
2025 WL 3562638, at *8–9 (W.D. Mich. Dec. 12, 2025); Acuna Sanchez v. Noem, No. 1:25-cv-
1442, 2025 WL 3562577, at *9–10 (W.D. Mich. Dec. 12, 2025); Penagos Robles v. U.S. Dep’t of
Homeland Sec., No. 1:25-cv-1578, 2025 WL 3558128, at *9–10 (W.D. Mich. Dec. 12, 2025).
To ensure that this Court’s orders regarding a hearing or release will bind at least one
Respondent with authority to act in the event that Petitioner is transferred out of the Western
District of Michigan, the Court will retain the Detroit ICE Field Office Director and the United
Case 1:26-cv-00289-HYJ-SJB ECF No. 17, PageID.<pageID> Filed 01/28/26 Page 5
of 6

6
States Secretary of Homeland Security as Respondents. The Court will dismiss the United States
Department of Homeland Security, the United States Attorney General, and the Executive Office
for Immigration Review as Respondents.
Conclusion
For the reasons discussed above, the Court will enter a judgment conditionally granting
Petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (ECF No. 1.) The
Court will order Respondents to provide Petitioner with a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a)
within five business days of the date of this Court’s opinion and judgment or, in the alternative,
immediately release Petitioner from custody.2 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. Further, the Court will
dismiss the United States Department of Homeland Security, the United States Attorney General,
and the Executive Office for Immigration Review as Respondents.
Dated: January 28, 2026 /s/ Hala Y. Jarbou
HALA Y. JARBOU
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2 This Court has adopted a standard practice of requiring such a hearing within five business days,
even if the Petitioner requests a deadline that is shorter or longer.
Case 1:26-cv-00289-HYJ-SJB ECF No. 17, PageID.<pageID> Filed 01/28/26 Page 6
of 6