Hamed v. Raycraft

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
______
ABDELRAHMAN KHALED ISMAEL
HAMED,
Petitioner,
v.
KEVIN RAYCRAFT,
Respondent.
____________________________/
Case No. 1:26-cv-1643
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 pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Pet.,
ECF No. 1.) The Court grants Petitioner leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 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.
I. 	Procedural History
In Petitioner’s § 2241 petition, Petitioner 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 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.7; Suppl. Pet., ECF No. 8.)
Case 1:26-cv-01643-JMB-PJG ECF No. 9, PageID.<pageID> Filed 06/09/26 Page 1
of 3

2
In an Order entered on June 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. 5.) Respondents filed their response and a recording of the March
18, 2026, bond hearing on June 2, 2026. (Resp., ECF No. 6; Recording of Mar. 18, 2026, Bond
Hearing, filed on June 2, 2026.)
II. 	Relevant Factual Background
Petitioner is a citizen of Egypt who entered the United States in 2025. (See 2026 Form
I-213, ECF No. 6-1, PageID.33) On February 23, 2026, Petitioner was arrested by ICE. (Id.,
PageID.34.)
On March 18, 2026, Petitioner received a bond hearing pursuant to § 1226(a). (See
Recording of Mar. 18, 2026, Bond Hearing, filed on June 2, 2026.) In a written order issued on
April 6, 2026, the Immigration Judge denied Petitioner’s request for bond, stating: “Danger denied.
Recent arrest for domestic violence. Respondent was accused of choking and threatening to kill
his wife.” (Apr. 6, 2026, Order Immigration Judge, ECF No. 6-3, PageID.43.)
III. 	Discussion
In Petitioner’s § 2241 petition, Petitioner argues that the Immigration Judge did not apply
the constitutionally required burden of proof at Petitioner’s § 1226(a) bond hearing on March 18,
2026. (See Pet., ECF No. 1); see also Soto-Medina v. Lynch, 817 F. Supp. 3d 612 (W.D. Mich.
2026) (addressing the constitutionally required burden of proof).1
Based on the record before the Court at this time, including the recording of the § 1226(a)
bond hearing, there is no indication in the record that the Immigration Judge applied an
1 To the extent that Petitioner believes a change in circumstances warrants the Immigration Court’s
reconsideration of his prior bond denial (see, e.g., Suppl. Pet., ECF No. 8), such a request must be
made to the Immigration Court. See Leonardo v. Crawford, 646 F.3d 1157, 1160 (9th Cir. 2011).
Case 1:26-cv-01643-JMB-PJG ECF No. 9, PageID.<pageID> Filed 06/09/26 Page 2
of 3

3
unconstitutional burden of proof at the bond hearing. Under these circumstances, the Court will
deny Petitioner’s § 2241 petition without prejudice.
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:
Jane M. Beckering
United States District Judge
June 9, 2026 /s/ Jane M. Beckering
Case 1:26-cv-01643-JMB-PJG ECF No. 9, PageID.<pageID> Filed 06/09/26 Page 3
of 3