Singh v. Raycraft et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
______
GURDEEP SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
KEVIN RAYCRAFT et al.,
Respondents.
____________________________/
Case No. 1:26-cv-1096
Hon. Hala Y. Jarbou
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, Petitioner challenges the lawfulness of his 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.19–20.)
In an order entered on April 3, 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. 3.) Respondents filed their response on April 8, 2026, (ECF
No. 4), and Petitioner filed his reply on April 9, 2026, (ECF No. 5).
Case 1:26-cv-01096-HYJ-RSK ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/28/26 Page 1
of 5

2
II. Factual Background
Petitioner is a native and citizen of India. (Notice to Appear (NTA), ECF No. 4-1,
PageID.59.) Petitioner entered the United States on or about November 17, 2022, near Lukeville,
Arizona, without inspection. (Id.) After Petitioner entered the United States, Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) agents encountered Petitioner, and at that time, 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 Petitioner 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.” (Id.; Form I-213, ECF No. 4-4, PageID.70.)
DHS then released Petitioner into the United States on his own recognizance “[i]n accordance with
section 236 of the [INA],” which is codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1226. (Order Release Recognizance,
ECF No. 4-3, PageID.65.) Petitioner has no criminal history. (Form I-213, ECF No. 4-4,
PageID.70.)
On December 9, 2025, ICE agents arrested Petitioner when he reported for an ICE check-in
appointment. (Id.) Petitioner was scheduled for an individual hearing on April 16, 2026, in the
Detroit Immigration Court.1 (Notice of Internet-Based Hearing, ECF No. 4-5, PageID.73.)
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.
1 The parties do not provide any other information about the April 16, 2026, hearing. Even if the
Detroit Immigration Court entered an order of removal at the April 16, 2026, that order would not
be “administratively final” for purposes of the INA until Petitioner’s appeal period expired or his
appeal was decided by the Board of Immigration Appeals. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(47)(B),
1231(a)(1)(B)(i), 1231(a)(2)(A). There is no indication in the record before the Court that either
of those events have occurred.
Case 1:26-cv-01096-HYJ-RSK ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/28/26 Page 2
of 5

3
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
A. Statutory Basis for Petitioner’s Detention
Respondents contend that Petitioner is properly detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b). 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).2
B. Fifth Amendment Due Process Considerations
Petitioner also argues that his detention violates the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process
Clause. Respondents argue that Petitioner is not entitled to any further process. (See Resp., ECF
No. 4, PageID.45–56.)
2 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-01096-HYJ-RSK ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/28/26 Page 3
of 5

4
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 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 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.3 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
3 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-01096-HYJ-RSK ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/28/26 Page 4
of 5

5
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: April 28, 2026 /s/ Hala Y. Jarbou
HALA Y. JARBOU
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 1:26-cv-01096-HYJ-RSK ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/28/26 Page 5
of 5