Pham v. Raycraft et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
______
ANH V. PHAM,
Petitioner,
v.
KEVIN RAYCRAFT et al.,
Respondents.
____________________________/
Case No. 1:26-cv-1292
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 petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241
and complaint for emergency injunctive relief. (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.20–21.)
In an order entered on April 22, 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
Case 1:26-cv-01292-PLM-PJG ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 05/01/26 Page 1
of 5

2
not be granted. (Order, ECF No. 3.) Respondents filed their response on April 27, 2026, (ECF
No. 4), and Petitioner filed his reply on April 28, 2026, (ECF No. 6).
II. 	Factual Background
Petitioner is a native and citizen of Vietnam. (Notice to Appear (NTA), ECF No. 4-1,
PageID.58.) Petitioner entered the United States in June 2022 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.) DHS then released Petitioner into the United States on his own recognizance in accordance
with section 236 of the INA, which is codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1226. (See 2022 Form I-213, ECF
No. 4-2, PageID.64.) Thereafter, on December 19, 2022, Petitioner filed an asylum application,
which remains pending. (See 2026 Form I-213, ECF NO. 4-4, PageID.69.)
On March 20, 2026, ICE arrested Petitioner while conducting “targeted” surveillance.1 (Id.,
PageID.68.) There is no indication in the record before this Court that Petitioner is currently
scheduled for any hearings in Immigration Court.
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 As noted above, Respondents indicate that Petitioner was encountered while ICE was conducting
“targeted” surveillance. (2026 Form I-213, ECF NO. 4-4, PageID.68.) Respondents do not argue
that 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.
Case 1:26-cv-01292-PLM-PJG ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 05/01/26 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
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).2
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-01292-PLM-PJG ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 05/01/26 Page 3
of 5

4
B. 	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 is not entitled to any
further process.
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,
Case 1:26-cv-01292-PLM-PJG ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 05/01/26 Page 4
of 5

5
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
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: 	May 1, 2026 	/s/ Paul L. Maloney
Paul L. Maloney
United States District Judge
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-01292-PLM-PJG ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 05/01/26 Page 5
of 5