Sow v. Raycraft et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
______
SERIGNE FALLOU SOW,
Petitioner,
v.
KEVIN RAYCRAFT et al.,
Respondents.
____________________________/
Case No. 1:26-cv-818
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
and grant Petitioner such further relief as is deemed just and proper. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.7.)
In an order entered on March 17, 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. 3.) Respondents filed their response and a recording of the
Case 1:26-cv-00818-JMB-RSK ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/24/26 Page 1
of 3

2
March 9, 2026, bond hearing on March 19, 2026. (Resp., ECF No. 4; Recording of Mar. 9, 2026,
Bond Hearing, filed on Mar. 19, 2026.) Petitioner filed his reply on March 20, 2026, (ECF No. 5.).
II. 	Relevant Factual Background
Petitioner is a citizen of Senegal who entered the United States in February 2024. (Pet.,
ECF No. 1, PageID.2, 3.) On January 21, 2026, Petitioner was arrested by ICE. (Id., PageID.3.)
On February 17, 2026, Petitioner filed a § 2241 petition challenging his initial detention
without a bond hearing in Sow v. Raycraft et al. (Sow I), No. 1:26-cv-538 (W.D. Mich.). In Sow 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. & J., Sow I, (W.D. Mich. Mar. 2,
2026), (ECF Nos. 8, 9.)
On March 9, 2026, Petitioner received a bond hearing pursuant to § 1226(a). (Mar. 9, 2026,
Order, ECF No. 4-4, PageID.102–105.) At that hearing, Petitioner argued that he was not a danger
to the community or a flight risk because he had no criminal record, was employed as an Uber
driver, had a sponsor, and community ties. (Recording of Mar. 9, 2026, Bond Hearing at 1:28–
2:40, 3:34–4:04, filed on Mar. 19. 2026.) Respondents argued that Petitioner was a flight risk as
he has been present in the country for a short period of time, did not provide a lease, did not provide
any proof of assets, and does not have any family present in the country. (Id. at 2:42–3:31, filed
on Mar. 19. 2026.) At the conclusion of the March 9, 2026, hearing, in a written order, the
Immigration Judge denied Petitioner’s request for bond, stating:
Flight risk. Recent entry. Entry in 2024. There is little evidence of employment history
such as W2s, no evidence of fixed address, no family connections in the U.S., etc.
(Mar. 9, 2026, Order, ECF No. 4-4, PageID.104.)
Case 1:26-cv-00818-JMB-RSK ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/24/26 Page 2
of 3

3
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 March 9,
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, No. 1:25-cv-1704, --- F. Supp. 3d ----, 2026 WL 161002, at *2 (W.D. Mich. Jan. 21, 2026)
(addressing the constitutionally required burden of proof).
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
April 24, 2026 	/s/ Jane M. Beckering
Case 1:26-cv-00818-JMB-RSK ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/24/26 Page 3
of 3