Esqueda Galvan v. Raycraft et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
______
SANDRA DIANA ESQUEDA GALVAN,
Petitioner,
v.
KEVIN RAYCRAFT et al.,
Respondents.
____________________________/
Case No. 1:26-cv-1006
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 pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241. (Pet., ECF No. 1.) For the following reasons, the Court will deny Petitioner’s petition for
a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 without prejudice.
Discussion
I. 	Procedural History
In Petitioner’s § 2241 petition, Petitioner challenges the lawfulness of her current detention
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.7.)
In an order entered on April 1, 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 6, 2026. (ECF
No. 5.)
Case 1:26-cv-01006-PLM-SJB ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/29/26 Page 1
of 4

2
II. 	Relevant Factual Background
Petitioner is a native and citizen of Mexico. (Notice to Appear (NTA), ECF No. 5-1,
PageID.65.) On or about January 1, 2005, Petitioner entered the United States near Hidalgo, Texas,
without inspection. (Id.) On April 25, 2020, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) agents
encountered Petitioner at a border checkpoint on U.S. Highway 70 in New Mexico attempting to
enter the United States. (2025 Form I-213, ECF No. 5-5, PageID.87.) DHS issued Petitioner a
Form I-862, NTA, charging Petitioner with inadmissibility under § 212(a)(6)(A)(i) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) because she is an immigrant “present in the United States
without being admitted or paroled, or who arrived in the United States at any time or place other
than as designated by the Attorney General.” (NTA, ECF No. 5-1, PageID.65.) It appears
Petitioner was thereafter released on bond. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.6.)
On June 10, 2025, Petitioner was arrested and detained by ICE in Columbus, Ohio,
following a traffic stop. (2025 Form I-213, ECF No. 5-5, PageID.86.) On July 2, 2025, the
Cleveland Immigration Court denied Petitioner’s request for bond because
The [Petitioner] has a significant amount of prior convictions to include three
[OWI] convictions. The Court finds that this not only makes the [Petitioner] a
danger to the community but also demonstrates that she is a flight risk as the Court
has concerns that she will follow Court orders and appear in Court when ordered to
as she has continuously violated the laws within the United States.
(Order of the Immigration Judge (IJ), ECF No. 5-6, PageID.90.)
On February 24, 2026, the Cleveland Immigration Court ordered that Petitioner be
removed to Mexico. (Order of the IJ, ECF No. 5-7, PageID.92–95.) Petitioner had until March 26,
2026, to timely appeal the removal order to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) (id.,
PageID.95), and Petitioner did not file an appeal. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.2). See also Automated
Case 1:26-cv-01006-PLM-SJB ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/29/26 Page 2
of 4

3
Case Information, https://acis.eoir.justice.gov/en/ (enter 078-341-072 for the A-Number, select
“Mexico” for the Nationality, and select Submit) (last visited Apr. 24, 2026).
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. 	Merits Discussion
As noted above, on February 24, 2026, the Cleveland Immigration Court ordered that
Petitioner be removed to Mexico. (Order of the IJ, ECF No. 5-7, PageID.92–95.) Petitioner had
until March 26, 2026, to timely appeal the removal order to the BIA (id., PageID.95), and Petitioner
did not file an appeal. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.2). Following the expiration of Petitioner’s appeal
period, Petitioner’s order of removal became administratively final, and at that time, Petitioner’s
detention became governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1231. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(47)(B) (setting forth that
for the purposes of 8 U.S.C. § 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”). Under these circumstances, based on the record that is presently
before the Court, as of March 27, 2026, the day after the expiration of Petitioner’s timely appeal
period, Petitioner’s order of removal became administratively final, and her detention became
governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1231. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(47)(B)(ii).
Case 1:26-cv-01006-PLM-SJB ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/29/26 Page 3
of 4

4
Section 1231 of Title 8, titled, “Detention and removal of aliens ordered removed,”
provides in relevant part that, “when an alien is ordered removed, the Attorney General shall
remove the alien from the United States within a period of 90 days (in this section referred to as
the ‘removal period’),” 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1)(A), and that “[d]uring the removal period, the
Attorney General shall detain the alien.” Id. § 1231(a)(2)(A).
Here, based on the record before the Court, Petitioner is within the 90-day removal period
during which Petitioner is subject to mandatory detention. See id. § 1231(a)(1)(A); see also id.
§ 1231 (a)(2)(A). Accordingly, because Petitioner is within the 90-day removal period, as set forth
in 8 U.S.C. § 1231, the Court will deny without prejudice Petitioner’s § 2241 petition.
Conclusion
For the reasons discussed above, the Court will enter a judgment denying Petitioner’s
petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 without prejudice.
Dated: 	April 29, 2026 	/s/ Paul L. Maloney
Paul L. Maloney
United States District Judge
Case 1:26-cv-01006-PLM-SJB ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/29/26 Page 4
of 4