Alnawaiseh v. Raycraft et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
______
RAKAN ALNAWAISEH,
Petitioner,
v.
KEVIN RAYCRAFT et al.,
Respondents.
____________________________/
Case No. 1:26-cv-1440
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. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.12.) In an order entered on May 4, 2026, the Court
directed Respondents to show cause, within three business days, why the writ of habeas corpus
should not be granted. (Order, ECF No. 4.) Respondents filed their response and a recording of the
Case 1:26-cv-01440-JMB-RSK ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 05/14/26 Page 1
of 4

2
January 28, 2026, bond hearing on May 7, 2026, (Resp., ECF No. 5; Recording of Jan. 28, 2026,
Bond Hearing, filed on May 7, 2026), and Petitioner filed his reply on May 12, 2026, (ECF No. 6).
II. 	Relevant Factual Background
Petitioner is a citizen of Jordan who was admitted to the United States on July 21, 2018,
“as a nonimmigrant B2 visitor for pleasure with authorization to remain in the U.S. for a temporary
period not to exceed January 20, 2019.” (Jan. 17, 2024, Decision & Order Immigration Judge, ECF
No. 5-1, PageID.63.) On October 25, 2019, the Department of Homeland Security issued Petitioner
a Form I-862, Notice to Appear, charging Petitioner with removability because Petitioner remained
in the United States beyond his authorization date. (See id.) On January 17, 2024, the Cleveland
Immigration Court ordered that Petitioner be removed to Jordan. (Id., PageID.74.) Petitioner
appealed this decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals, and Petitioner’s appeal remains
pending. 1 (See Resp., ECF No. 5, PageID.50.)
On January 6, 2026, ICE arrested Petitioner. (See 2026 Form I-213, ECF No. 5-2,
PageID.78.) On January 28, 2026, the Cleveland Immigration Court held a bond hearing pursuant
to § 1226(a). (See Jan. 29, 2026, Order Immigration Judge, ECF No. 5-3.) On January 29, 2026,
the Immigration Judge issued a short order denying Petitioner’s request for bond because “the
Court f[ound] that the Respondent is a flight risk and that no amount of bond would ensure his
presence at future hearings.” (Id., PageID.81.) On February 9, 2026, the Immigration Judge issued
a longer decision and order, providing the Court’s analysis and reasoning for denying bond, and
1 Because Petitioner’s appeal to the BIA remains pending, Petitioner’s order of removal is not
“administratively 	final” 	for 	purposes 	of 	the 	INA. 	See 	8 	U.S.C. 	§§ 1101(a)(47)(B),
1231(a)(1)(B)(i), 1231(a)(2)(A). And, because Petitioner’s appeal to the BIA remains pending,
§ 1226(a) governs Petitioner’s detention. See Johnson v. Guzman Chavez, 594 U.S. 523, 533
(2021) (“The parties agree that § 1226 governs the detention of aliens until § 1231’s ‘removal
period’ begins.”).
Case 1:26-cv-01440-JMB-RSK ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 05/14/26 Page 2
of 4

3
in the decision and order, the Immigration Judge explained that she was denying bond because
“[Petitioner] failed to demonstrate that he is not a flight risk.” (Feb. 9, 2026, Decision & Order
Immigration Judge, ECF No. 5-4.)
III. 	Analysis
Respondents argue that the Court should deny Petitioner’s § 2241 petition due to a lack of
jurisdiction and Petitioner’s failure to exhaust Petitioner’s administrative remedies, as well as on
the merits. The Court has fully addressed these issues and Respondents’ arguments 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.
IV. 	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-01440-JMB-RSK ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 05/14/26 Page 3
of 4

4
denied, and if bond was granted, the conditions of the bond, or if bond was denied, the reasons for
the denial.
Dated:
Jane M. Beckering
United States District Judge
May 14, 2026 	/s/ Jane M. Beckering
Case 1:26-cv-01440-JMB-RSK ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 05/14/26 Page 4
of 4