Diallo v. Raycraft et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
______
AISSATOU TASFIR DIALLO,
Petitioner,
v.
KEVIN RAYCRAFT et al.,
Respondents.
____________________________/
Case No. 1:26-cv-1674
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 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.
I. 	Procedural History
In Petitioner’s § 2241 petition, Petitioner challenges the constitutionality of her current
detention following an order issued by the Detroit Immigration Court denying Petitioner bond, and
asks the Court to, inter alia, issue a writ of habeas corpus ordering Respondents to release
Petitioner. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.9.) 1
1 When Petitioner initiated this action, Petitioner also filed several motions asking the Court to
take certain actions during the pendency of this action and asking the Court to order Respondents
to take certain actions during the pendency of this action. (ECF Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7.) In this opinion,
the Court resolves this action. Therefore, Petitioner’s motions asking the Court to take certain
actions during the pendency of this action and asking the Court to order Respondents to take certain
actions during the pendency of this action are moot.
Case 1:26-cv-01674-JMB-MV ECF No. 14, PageID.<pageID> Filed 06/15/26 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. 11.) Respondents filed their response and a recording of the March
13, 2026, bond hearing on June 4, 2026. (Resp., ECF No. 12; Recording of Mar. 13, 2026, Bond
Hearing, filed on June 4, 2026.) Petitioner filed a reply on June 6, 2026, (ECF No. 13).
II. 	Relevant Factual Background
On February 21, 2026, Petitioner filed a § 2241 petition challenging her detention
following an order issued by the Detroit Immigration Court denying Petitioner bond in Tasfir
Diallo v. Raycraft (Tasfir Diallo II), No. 1:26-cv-589 (W.D. Mich.).2 In Tasfir Diallo II, the Court
conditionally granted Petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241,
ordering Respondents to provide Petitioner with a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), at which
time the government will have the burden to demonstrate dangerousness or flight risk by clear and
convincing evidence, within five business days of the date of the Court’s Opinion and Judgment
or, in the alternative, immediately release Petitioner from custody. Op. & Jud., Tasfir Diallo II,
(W.D. Mich. Mar. 9, 2026), (ECF Nos. 7, 8). On March 13, 2026, Petitioner received a bond
hearing pursuant to § 1226(a). (Mar. 13, 2026, Order Immigration Judge, ECF No. 1-4.) At the
conclusion of the March 13, 2026, hearing, in a written order, the Immigration Judge denied
Petitioner’s request for bond because “[t]he government has proven by clear and convincing
evidence that [Petitioner] is a flight risk.” (Id., PageID.23.)
2 Prior to filing Tasfir Diallo II, Petitioner had filed a § 2241 petition challenging her initial
detention without a bond hearing, which the Court had conditionally granted. See Tasfir Diallo v.
Raycraft, No. 1:26-cv-260 (W.D. Mich. 2026).
Case 1:26-cv-01674-JMB-MV ECF No. 14, PageID.<pageID> Filed 06/15/26 Page 2
of 3

3
III. 	Discussion
In Petitioner’s § 2241 petition, Petitioner argues that the Immigration Judge did not
properly apply the constitutionally required burden of proof at Petitioner’s § 1226(a) bond hearing
on March 13, 2026. (Pet., ECF No. 1); see Soto-Medina v. Lynch, 817 F. Supp. 3d 612 (W.D.
Mich. 2026) (addressing the constitutionally required burden of proof).
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
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: 	June 15, 2026 	/s/ Jane M. Beckering
Jane M. Beckering
United States District Judge
Case 1:26-cv-01674-JMB-MV ECF No. 14, PageID.<pageID> Filed 06/15/26 Page 3
of 3