Calunga v. Raycraft et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
______
RODOLFO PEREZ CALUNGA,
Petitioner,
v.
KEVIN RAYCRAFT et al.,
Respondents.
____________________________/
Case No. 1:26-cv-953
Honorable Paul L. Maloney
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 combined 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 his § 2241 petition, Petitioner challenges the lawfulness of his current detention and asks
the Court to, inter alia, assume jurisdiction over this matter and issue a writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 ordering Respondents to release Petitioner. (Pet., ECF No. 1,
PageID.20.) 1
1 In addition to filing the § 2241 petition, Petitioner also filed an emergency motion in this action,
seeking immediate release. (ECF No. 6.) As set forth in this opinion, the Court will conditionally
grant Petitioner’s § 2241 petition. In light of this, the entry of the Court’s opinion and
corresponding judgment moots Petitioner’s pending motion.
Case 1:26-cv-00953-PLM-SJB ECF No. 10, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/23/26 Page 1
of 9

2
In an order entered on March 25, 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. 4.) Respondents filed their response on April 1, 2026,
(ECF No. 7), and Petitioner filed his reply on April 6, 2026, (ECF No. 8.).
II. 	Factual Background
Petitioner is a native and citizen of Cuba. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.5; 2024 Form I-94,
ECF No. 1-2, PageID.25; 2024 Notice to Appear (NTA), ECF No. 1-3, PageID.27.) Petitioner
entered the United States on February 25, 2024, at the San Ysidro California Port of Entry. (2024
NTA, ECF No. 1-3, PageID.27.) Petitioner applied for admission to the United States through the
United States Customs and Border Protection mobile application program (CBPOne Program).
(Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.7.)
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) agents issued Petitioner an NTA, charging
Petitioner with inadmissibility under § 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) of the Immigration and Nationality Act
(INA) because Petitioner was an immigrant “who, at the time of application for admission, is not
in possession of a valid unexpired [immigration or travel document].” (2024 NTA, ECF No. 1-3,
PageID.30.) Petitioner was scheduled for a master calendar hearing on March 27, 2025, in the
Detroit Immigration Court. (Id., PageID.27.)
DHS granted Petitioner discretionary temporary parole on February 25, 2024, pursuant to
8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5)(A). (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.7; 2024 Form I-94, ECF No. 1-2, PageID.25.)
Form I-94 states that Petitioner’s parole was in effect until February 23, 2026. (Pet., ECF No. 1,
PageID.7; 	2024 	Form 	I-94, 	ECF 	No. 	1-2, 	PageID.25.) 	Petitioner 	obtained 	employment
authorization and began working. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.2; Form I-797C, Notice of Action,
ECF No. 1-5, PageID.34.)
Case 1:26-cv-00953-PLM-SJB ECF No. 10, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/23/26 Page 2
of 9

3
On February 26, 2025, Petitioner applied for Adjustment of Status under the Cuban
Refugee Adjustment Act2 (CAA), Public Law 89-732 (November 2, 1966). (Form I-797C Receipt
Notice, ECF No. 1-4, PageID.32.) On March 28, 2025, Petitioner completed his biometrics
appointment in connection with his CAA application. (2025 Form I-797C, ECF No. 1-5.
PageID.34.) On June 13, 2025, an Immigration Judge granted Petitioner’s motion to terminate
removal proceedings without prejudice so he could pursue adjustment of status before the U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). (2025 Immigration Judge Order, ECF No. 1-7,
PageID.38.)
On March 4, 2026, DHS agents conducted surveillance at an apartment complex in
Ypsilanti, Michigan, where it was known that noncitizens resided. (2026 Form I-213, ECF No. 7-2,
PageID.136.) The DHS agents observed Petitioner enter a truck at the apartment complex. (Id.)
The agents initiated a vehicle stop by blocking the truck with their vehicles. (Id.) After determining
that the driver was a citizen and national of Cuba, they detained the driver, Petitioner, and
transported him to the ICE Field Office for processing. 3 (Id.)
2 To qualify for adjustment under Section 1 of the Cuban Adjustment Act, an applicant must:
(1) Be a native or citizen of Cuba;
(2) Be inspected and admitted or paroled into the United States;
(3) Be physically present in the U.S. for at least 1 year prior to filing for adjustment;
(4) Be eligible to receive an immigration visa;
(5) Be admissible to the United States for permanent residence; and
(6) Merit the favorable exercise of discretion.
Cuban Refugee Adjustment Act (CAA), Pub. L. No. 89-732, 80 Stat. 1161 (1966).
3 	Respondents 	indicate 	that 	Petitioner 	was 	encountered 	while 	ICE 	conducted 	“targeted”
surveillance (2026 Form I-213, ECF No. 7-2, PageID.136.) Respondents do not argue that
Case 1:26-cv-00953-PLM-SJB ECF No. 10, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/23/26 Page 3
of 9

4
DHS issued Petitioner a second NTA, charging Petitioner with inadmissibility under
§ 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) of the INA because Petitioner was an immigrant “who, at the time of
application for admission, is not in possession of a valid unexpired [immigration or travel
document].” (2026 NTA, ECF No. 1-8, PageID.40–43.) Petitioner was scheduled for a master
calendar hearing on March 16, 2026, in the Detroit Immigration Court. (Id., PageID.40.)
On the same date, DHS served Petitioner with a letter entitled: “Termination of Parole
Issued Pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5) and 8 C.F.R. § 212.5(e)(2).” Despite Petitioner’s Form
I-94 stating that his parole was valid until February 23, 2026 (2024 Form I-94, ECF No. 1-2,
PageID.25), the March 4th letter states that Petitioner’s parole was valid until April 18, 2025.4
(March 4, 2026 Termination of Parole letter, ECF No. 7-2, PageID.140.) In any event, based on
the 1-94, on February 23, 2026—about a week before he was detained--Petitioner’s parole expired.
On March 16, 2026, the Detroit Immigration Court entered a “Finding of Removability and
Scheduling Order” finding that Petitioner was removable from the United States pursuant to
Petitioner is subject to mandatory detention pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c), and there is nothing
in the record presently before the Court to suggest that Petitioner was a law enforcement target for
any reason other than his status as a noncitizen. (See id.)
4 Respondents do not explain the discrepancy found in the ending dates of Petitioner’s parole
between the Form I-94 and the March 4, 2026, Termination of Parole letter. But it is clear from
the I-94 that Petitioner's parole was originally valid until February 23, 2026. (2024 Form I-94,
ECF No. 1-2, PageID.25.) Therefore, on this record Petitioner’s parole did not expire by its terms
on April 18, 2025. Of course, DHS could have terminated parole and updated the form to reflect a
new and earlier expiration date. See United States Citizenship and Immigration Services Guidance
Website, 	https://www.uscis.gov/ 	save/current-user-agencies/guidance/faqs-on-the-effect-of-
changes-to-parole-and-temporary-protected-status-tps-for-save-agencies 	(under 	“Non-
Categorical Parole” heading, select “Is DHS revising the parolee's Form I-94, Arrival/Departure
Record, Admit Until Date if parole is terminated early?”) (“Yes. If DHS terminates an alien's
parole before the expiration date of the parole period, DHS will update the Form I-94,
Arrival/Departure Record to reflect the new parole termination date.”). But if that is what happened
here, there is no record of it.
Case 1:26-cv-00953-PLM-SJB ECF No. 10, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/23/26 Page 4
of 9

5
§ 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) of the INA. (Finding of Removability and Scheduling Order,5 ECF No. 1-10,
PageID.47.) The Immigration Court directed Petitioner to file all relief applications by March 30,
2026. (Id., PageID.48.)
On March 30, 2026, the immigration judge took notice that Petitioner “filed a motion to
terminate the removal proceedings on March 13, 2026, to pursue adjustment of status pursuant to
the Cuban Adjustment Act.” (Order of Immigration Judge, ECF No. 7-3, PageID.143.) The
immigration judge found that Petitioner “is prima facie to adjust status under the Cuban
Adjustment Act and an I-485 has been filed.” (Id.) The immigration judge found: “that the
[removal] case is terminated without prejudice pursuant to 8 C.F.R. Section 1003.18.” (Id.) As of
April 7, 2026, Petitioner remains detained at the North Lake Correctional Facility despite the
termination of the removal proceedings.
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).
5 Patel 	v. 	Tindell, 	810 	F.Supp.3d 	824, 	832 	(W.D. 	Ky. 	2005), 	found 	that 	the 	statute[,
§ 1225(b)(1)(A)(i)—(iii)] “forbids the expedited removal of noncitizens who have been, at any
point in time, paroled into the United States.” 810 F.Supp.3d at 832 (citing. Coalition For Humane
Immigrant Rights v. Noem, 805 F.Supp.3d 48, 58 (D.D.C. 2025)).
Case 1:26-cv-00953-PLM-SJB ECF No. 10, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/23/26 Page 5
of 9

6
IV. 	Merits Discussion
A. 	Exhaustion
Respondents argue that the Court should deny Petitioner’s request for habeas corpus relief
because Petitioner has not exhausted his administrative remedies. 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.
B. 	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,
Case 1:26-cv-00953-PLM-SJB ECF No. 10, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/23/26 Page 6
of 9

7
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).6
C. 	Fifth Amendment Due Process Considerations
Petitioner also argues that his 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 him, has access to counsel, may 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
relatively short period of 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,
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).
V. 	Other Claims and Other Forms of Relief
Because the Court will 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.
6 The Court is aware of Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, 166 F.4th 494 (5th Cir. 2026), which was
recently issued by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, and Avila v. Bondi,
No. 25-3248, --- F.4th ----, 2026 WL 819258 (8th Cir. Mar. 25, 2026), which was recently issued
by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. At this time, these non-binding cases
do not change the Court’s analysis.
Case 1:26-cv-00953-PLM-SJB ECF No. 10, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/23/26 Page 7
of 9

8
VI. 	Proper Respondents
Respondents argue that the Detroit ICE Field Office Director is the only proper Respondent
in this action, and they seek the dismissal of all of the other named Respondents.7
The Court concludes that the Detroit ICE Field Office Director is not the only proper
Respondent for the reasons set forth in the Court’s analysis of the same argument in each of the
following cases: Antele Cobix v. Raycraft, No. 1:25-cv-1669, 2025 WL 3562651, at *8–9 (W.D.
Mich. Dec. 12, 2025); Candela Bastidas v. Noem, No. 1:25-cv-1528, 2025 WL 3562638, at *8–9
(W.D. Mich. Dec. 12, 2025); Acuna Sanchez v. Noem, No. 1:25-cv-1442, 2025 WL 3562577,
at *9–10 (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 *9–10 (W.D. Mich. Dec. 12, 2025).
To ensure that this Court’s orders regarding a hearing or release will bind at least one
Respondent with authority to act in the event that Petitioner is transferred out of the Western
District of Michigan, the Court will retain the Detroit ICE Field Office Director and the Secretary
for the Department of Homeland Security as Respondents. The Court will dismiss the Department
of Homeland Security, the United States Attorney General, and the Executive Office for
Immigration Review as Respondents.
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 with notice to the Parties
as soon as practicable, no later than 24 hours prior to the scheduled hearing, or, in the alternative,
7 The Warden of the North Lake Processing Center was terminated as a Respondent in the March
25, 2026 Order to Show Cause. (Order, ECF No. 4, PageID.72.)
Case 1:26-cv-00953-PLM-SJB ECF No. 10, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/23/26 Page 8
of 9

9
immediately release Petitioner from custody.8 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. Further, the Court will
dismiss the Department of Homeland Security, the United States Attorney General, and the
Executive Office for Immigration Review as Respondents.
Dated: 	April 23, 2026 	/s/ Paul L. Maloney
Paul L. Maloney
United States District Judge
8 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 or only release.
Case 1:26-cv-00953-PLM-SJB ECF No. 10, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/23/26 Page 9
of 9