Tandioy-Meneses v. Raycraft et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
______
ERICK JOSE TANDIOY-MENESES,
Petitioner,
v.
KEVIN RAYCRAFT et al.,
Respondents.
____________________________/
Case No. 1:26-cv-1498
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.25.)
Case 1:26-cv-01498-JMB-RSK ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 05/19/26 Page 1
of 4

2
In an Order entered on May 7, 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. 3.)
Respondents filed their response and a recording of the March 18, 2026, bond hearing on May 12,
2026, (Resp., ECF No. 5; Recording of Mar. 18, 2026, Bond Hearing, filed on May 12, 2026), and
Petitioner filed his reply on May 13, 2026, (ECF No. 5).
II. 	Relevant Factual Background
Petitioner is a citizen of Venezuela who entered the United States in 2023. (Pet., ECF No. 1,
PageID.7.) On October 2, 2025, Petitioner was arrested by ICE. (Id., PageID.10.)
On February 20, 2026, Petitioner filed a § 2241 petition challenging his initial detention
without a bond hearing in Tandioy-Meneses v. Raycraft (Tandioy-Meneses I), No. 1:26-cv-587
(W.D. Mich.). In Tandioy-Meneses 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. &
Jud., Tandioy-Meneses I, (W.D. Mich. Mar. 12, 2026), (ECF Nos. 5, 6).
On March 18, 2026, Petitioner received a bond hearing pursuant to § 1226(a). (Pet., ECF
No. 1, PageID.2.) At the hearing, Respondents’ attorney stated that “this is not a burden shifting
case by the District Court; they [i.e., Petitioner and Petitioner’s attorney] still have the burden of
danger and flight risk in this case,” and after Respondents’ attorney’s proffer, the Immigration
Judge agreed with Respondents’ attorney regarding the burden, stating: “I know who has the
burden; I know I had you go first, but sometimes it’s easier for DHS to [go first] cause I get the
full procedural history, so that’s the only reason I asked you to go first. ” (Recording of Mar. 18,
2026, Bond Hearing, at 04:44–04:50, 06:42–06:53, filed on May 12, 2026.) At the conclusion of
the March 18, 2026, hearing, the Immigration Judge denied Petitioner’s request for bond, stating:
Case 1:26-cv-01498-JMB-RSK ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 05/19/26 Page 2
of 4

3
“the Court finds the Respondent is a flight risk, and the Respondent’s request for a bond is denied.”
(Immigration Judge Order, ECF No. 1-1, PageID.29.)
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, 817 F. Supp. 3d 612 (W.D. Mich. 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-01498-JMB-RSK ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 05/19/26 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: 	May 19, 2026 	/s/ Jane M. Beckering
Jane M. Beckering
United States District Judge
Case 1:26-cv-01498-JMB-RSK ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 05/19/26 Page 4
of 4