Huerta Morales v. Kevin Raycraft

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
______
LILIANA HUERTA MORALES,
Petitioner,
v.
KEVIN RAYCRAFT et al.,
Respondents.
____________________________/
Case No. 1:25-cv-1842
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 on October 21, 2025, 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
conditionally grant Petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
Discussion
I. 	Relevant Procedural History
Petitioner initiated this action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan. In Petitioner’s § 2241 petition, Petitioner challenges the lawfulness of her current
detention and asks the Court to, inter alia, accept jurisdiction over this action, declare that 8 U.S.C.
§ 1226(a) is the appropriate statutory provision that governs Petitioner’s detention and eligibility
for bond, and issue a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 ordering Respondents to
conduct a bond hearing for Petitioner’s removal proceedings or release Petitioner from custody.
(Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.22–23.)
Case 1:25-cv-01842-JMB-PJG ECF No. 19, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/29/25 Page 1
of 5

2
On October 31, 2025, Respondents filed their response to the petition. (ECF No. 5.)
Petitioner filed her reply on November 3, 2025. (ECF No. 6.) On December 18, 2025, the Eastern
District of Michigan transferred the action to this Court. (ECF No. 15.)
II. 	Factual Background
Petitioner is a native and citizen of Mexico. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.6; Hughley Decl.
¶ 4, ECF No. 5-2, PageID.110.) Petitioner entered the United States in 2005 without inspection
when she was seventeen years old. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.6; see Hughley Decl. ¶ 4, ECF
No. 5-2, PageID.110.) Prior to Petitioner’s present detention, she resided in Connecticut. (Pet.,
ECF No. 1, PageID.7.) Petitioner has three United States citizen children and one United States
citizen grandchild. (Id.)
On August 23, 2025, ICE encountered and arrested Petitioner while she was at work at a
car wash in Connecticut. (Id., PageID.8.) 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). (Hughley Decl. ¶ 7, ECF No. 5-2, PageID.111.)
On September 29, 2025, the Detroit Immigration Court denied Petitioner’s request for a
change in custody status “for lack of jurisdiction under Yajure Hurtado.” (Pet., ECF No. 1,
PageID.9; see Hughley Decl. ¶ 10, ECF No. 5-2, PageID.111–112.) “On October 22, 2025,
[Petitioner] appeared in the Detroit Immigration Court with her attorney for a master calendar
hearing.” (Hughley Decl. ¶ 11, ECF No. 5-2, PageID.112.) At that hearing, Petitioner indicated
that she intended to file an Application for Cancellation of Removal and Adjustment of Status for
Certain Non-Permanent Residents. (Id.) 1
1 The parties provide no further information about Petitioner’s Application for Cancellation of
Removal and Adjustment of Status for Certain Non-Permanent Residents.
Case 1:25-cv-01842-JMB-PJG ECF No. 19, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/29/25 Page 2
of 5

3
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 her administrative remedies by appealing any unfavorable
decision regarding bond to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA).
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-
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.
Case 1:25-cv-01842-JMB-PJG ECF No. 19, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/29/25 Page 3
of 5

4
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 her 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 her, 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.
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,
Case 1:25-cv-01842-JMB-PJG ECF No. 19, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/29/25 Page 4
of 5

5
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.
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.
Dated:
Jane M. Beckering
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.
December 29, 2025 	/s/ Jane M. Beckering
Case 1:25-cv-01842-JMB-PJG ECF No. 19, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/29/25 Page 5
of 5