Ba v. Raycraft et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
______
AMADOU BA,
Petitioner,
v.
KEVIN RAYCRAFT et al.,
Respondents.
____________________________/
Case No. 1:26-cv-1343
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 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.20–21.) In an Order entered on April 30, 2026, the Court
directed Respondents to show cause, within three business days, why the writ of habeas corpus
Case 1:26-cv-01343-JMB-MV ECF No. 8, PageID.<pageID> Filed 06/08/26 Page 1
of 5

2
should not be granted. (Order, ECF No. 4.) Respondents filed their response and a recording of the
March 23, 2026, bond hearing on May 4, 2026. (Resp., ECF No. 5; Recording of Mar. 23, 2026,
Bond Hearing, filed on May 4, 2026.) Petitioner filed his reply on May 4, 2026, (ECF No. 6), and
a notice of supplemental authority on May 12, 2026, (ECF No. 7).
II. 	Factual Background
Petitioner is a citizen of Mauritania who entered the United States on or about May 10,
2023. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.6; Form I-213, ECF No. 5-1, PageID.68.) On July 1, 2025, ICE
agents arrested Petitioner. (Form I-213, ECF No. 5-1, PageID.68.) In an order entered on October
15, 2025, an Immigration Judge in the Cleveland Immigration Court denied Petitioner’s
application for asylum and withholding of removal, and ordered that Petitioner be removed to
Mauritania. (Oct. 2025 Order Immigration Judge, ECF No. 5-2, PageID.71–73.) Petitioner
appealed this order to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), and that appeal remains pending.
(Resp., ECF No. 5, PageID.37; Recording of Mar. 23, 2026, Bond Hearing, at 2:06–2:25, filed on
May 4, 2026.) Because Petitioner’s appeal to the BIA remains pending, Petitioner’s order of
removal is not “administratively final” for purposes of the INA.1 See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(47)(B),
1231(a)(1)(B)(i), 1231(a)(2)(A).
1 Section 1231 of Title 8, titled, “Detention and removal of aliens ordered removed,” provides in
relevant part that, “[d]uring the removal period, the Attorney General shall detain the alien.”
8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(2)(A). However, as relevant to this case, the removal period does not begin to
run until “[t]he date the order of removal becomes administratively final.” Id. § 1231(a)(1)(B)(i).
For the purposes of § 1231(a)(1)(B)(i), a removal order “shall become final upon the earlier of (i) a
determination by the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming such an order; or (ii) the expiration
of the period in which the alien is permitted to seek review of such order by the Board of
Immigration Appeals.” Id. § 1101(a)(47)(B); see Jusufi v. Chertoff, No. 07-15450, 2007 WL
4591760, at *4 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 28, 2007) (discussing that a final removal order becomes
administratively final when the BIA denies an appeal of it); see also Johnson v. Guzman Chavez,
594 U.S. 523, 534–35 (2021) (“[O]nce the BIA has reviewed [and affirmed] the [removal] order
(or the time for seeking the BIA’s review has expired), DHS is free to remove the alien unless a
court issues a stay. That reinforces why Congress included ‘administratively’ before the word
‘final’ in the first provision.”). Because Petitioner’s appeal to the BIA remains pending, § 1231
Case 1:26-cv-01343-JMB-MV ECF No. 8, PageID.<pageID> Filed 06/08/26 Page 2
of 5

3
On March 23, 2026, Petitioner received a hearing in the Detroit Immigration Court. (Resp.,
ECF No. 5, PageID.38; Order Immigration Judge, ECF No. 1-3, PageID.29.) During that hearing,
the Immigration Judge stated that it was Petitioner’s burden to show that he was not a flight risk
or a danger to the community. (Recording of Mar. 23, 2026, Bond Hearing, at 5:47–5:52, filed on
May 4, 2026.) In an order entered following the hearing, the Immigration Judge denied Petitioner’s
request for a custody redetermination. (Order Immigration Judge, ECF No. 1-3, PageID.29.) The
Immigration Judge determined that immigration judges lack the authority to hear a detainee’s
request for bond. (Id.) Alternatively, the Immigration Judge stated that “[e]ven if the Court had the
authority to hear the bond request, [Petitioner] has failed to meet his/her burden of demonstrating
[Petitioner] is not a flight risk.” (Id.)
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 upon the federal courts 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).
does not apply, and § 1226(a) governs Petitioner’s detention. See Johnson, 594 U.S. at 533 (“The
parties agree that § 1226 governs the detention of aliens until § 1231’s ‘removal period’ begins.”).
Case 1:26-cv-01343-JMB-MV ECF No. 8, PageID.<pageID> Filed 06/08/26 Page 3
of 5

4
IV. 	Merits Discussion
A. 	Statutory Basis for Petitioner’s Detention
Based on the facts presented by the parties, and the reasoning of the Sixth Circuit Court of
Appeals in Lopez-Campos v. Raycraft, Nos. 25-1965, 1969, 1978, 1982, 2026 WL 1283891 (6th
Cir. May 11, 2026), the Court concludes that § 1226(a), not § 1225(b)(2)(A), governs Petitioner’s
detention.
B. 	Burden of Proof
Respondents argue that the Court should deny Petitioner’s § 2241 petition due to a lack of
jurisdiction. The Court has fully addressed this issue and Respondents’ argument in Soto-Medina
v. Lynch, No. 1:25-cv-1704, --- F. Supp. 3d ----, 2026 WL 161002, at *2 (W.D. Mich. Jan. 21,
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.
V. 	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
Case 1:26-cv-01343-JMB-MV ECF No. 8, PageID.<pageID> Filed 06/08/26 Page 4
of 5

5
denied, and if bond was granted, the conditions of the bond, or if bond was denied, the reasons for
the denial.
Dated: 	June 8, 2026 	/s/ Jane M. Beckering
Jane M. Beckering
United States District Judge
Case 1:26-cv-01343-JMB-MV ECF No. 8, PageID.<pageID> Filed 06/08/26 Page 5
of 5