Gil-Blanco v. Raycraft et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
______
EDGAR JOSE GIL-BLANCO,
Petitioner,
v.
KEVIN RAYCRAFT et al.,
Respondents.
____________________________/
Case No. 1:26-cv-1495
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 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, he challenges the constitutionality of his current detention
following an order issued by the Detroit Immigration Court denying him bond, 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 or provide Petitioner with a bond hearing where the government bears the burden
of proof by clear and convincing evidence that Petitioner is a flight risk or danger to the
community. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.16.) In an Order entered on May 4, 2026, the Court directed
Respondents to show cause, within three business days, why the writ of habeas corpus should not
Case 1:26-cv-01495-JMB-PJG ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 05/29/26 Page 1
of 3

2
be granted. (Order, ECF No. 4.) Respondents filed their response and a recording of the February
12, 2026 bond hearing on May 13, 2026, (Resp., ECF No. 5; Recording of Feb. 12, 2026 Bond
Hearing, filed on May 13, 2026), and Petitioner filed his reply on May 19, 2026, (ECF No. 6).
II. 	Factual Background
Petitioner is a citizen of Colombia who entered the United States in 2022. (Pet., ECF No. 1,
PageID.2.) On January 7, 2026, Petitioner was arrested by ICE. (Id.)
On February 12, 2026, Petitioner had a bond hearing before the Detroit Immigration Court.
(Id.) The Immigration Judge (IJ) denied bond because, “The Court finds that Respondent failed to
demonstrate that the Court has jurisdiction to reconsider his custody status and therefore the Court
would decline to set bond. See Matter of Hurtado, 29 I&N Dec. 216 (BIA 2025)[.]” (Order of the
IJ, ECF No. 5-5, PageID.62.) “In the alternative, if the Court were to find jurisdiction, the Court
would deny [Petitioner’s] request for reconsideration of his custody status.” (Id.) The IJ’s order
further states that “An alien requesting a redetermination of his or her custody status under section
236(a) ‘must establish to the satisfaction of the Immigration Judge and the Board that he or she
does not present a danger to persons or property, is not a threat to the national security, and does
not pose a risk of flight.’ Matter of Siniauskas, 27 I&N Dec. 207, 207 (BIA 2018).” (Id.)
On March 9, 2026, Petitioner filed a § 2241 petition challenging the February 12, 2026
bond hearing in Gil-Blanco v. Raycraft (Gil-Blanco I), No. 1:26-cv-770 (W.D. Mich.). In
Gil-Blanco I, the Court dismissed Petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus without prejudice
because he did not raise any constitutional claims regarding the February 12, 2026 bond hearing.
Op. & Jud., Gil-Blanco I, (W.D. Mich. Apr. 22, 2026), (ECF Nos. 9, 10).
III. 	Analysis
Respondents argue that the Court should deny Petitioner’s § 2241 petition due to a lack of
jurisdiction and Petitioner’s failure to exhaust Petitioner’s administrative remedies, as well as on
Case 1:26-cv-01495-JMB-PJG ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 05/29/26 Page 2
of 3

3
the merits. The Court has fully addressed these issues and Respondents’ arguments in Soto-Medina
v. Lynch, 817 F. Supp. 3d 612 (W.D. Mich. 2026). Therefore, for the reasons set forth in Soto-
Medina, the Court will conditionally grant Petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
IV. 	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
The Court will order Respondents to provide Petitioner with an individualized bond
hearing before an immigration judge, at which time the government will have the burden to
demonstrate dangerousness or flight risk by clear and convincing evidence, within five business
days and 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. 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 29, 2026 	/s/ Jane M. Beckering
Jane M. Beckering
United States District Judge
Case 1:26-cv-01495-JMB-PJG ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 05/29/26 Page 3
of 3