Cid-Barrios v. Raycraft et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
______
HECTOR CID-BARRIOS,
Petitioner,
v.
KEVIN RAYCRAFT et al.,
Respondents.
____________________________/
Case No. 1:25-cv-1898
Honorable Robert J. Jonker
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 conditionally grant Petitioner’s
petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
Discussion
I. 	Relevant Procedural History
Petitioner initiated this action on November 14, 2025, in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan. In Petitioner’s § 2241 petition, Petitioner challenges the
lawfulness of his current detention and asks the Court to, inter alia, accept jurisdiction over this
action, declare that 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) is the appropriate statutory provision that governs
Petitioner’s detention and eligibility for bond, and issue a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2241 ordering Respondents to conduct a bond hearing for Petitioner’s removal
proceedings or release Petitioner from custody. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.18–19.)
Case 1:25-cv-01898-RJJ-RSK ECF No. 24, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/31/25 Page 1
of 6

2
On November 14, 2025, the Eastern District of Michigan directed Respondents to respond
to the petition by November 21, 2025. (ECF No. 5.) Respondents filed their response on November
21, 2025, (ECF No. 6), and Petitioner filed his reply later that same day, (ECF No. 7.) In an order
entered on November 25, 2025, the Eastern District of Michigan directed the parties to show cause
by December 2, 2025, why the action should not be transferred to this Court. (ECF No. 11.)
Following briefing on the matter, the Eastern District of Michigan transferred the action to this
Court on December 24, 2025. (ECF No. 20.)
II. 	Factual Background
Petitioner is a native and citizen of Mexico. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.6; Hoppe Decl. ¶ 4,
ECF No. 6-1, PageID.99.) Petitioner entered the United States over twenty-five years ago without
inspection. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.2; Hoppe Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 6-1, PageID.99.) Petitioner has
four United States citizen children. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.2.)
On July 1, 2013, United States Border Patrol (USBP) agents encountered Petitioner near
Monroe, Michigan. (Hoppe Decl. ¶ 5, ECF No. 6-1, PageID.99.) At that time, USBP issued
Petitioner a Form I-862, Notice to Appear, charging Petitioner with inadmissibility under
§ 212(a)(6)(A)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) because Petitioner “is an
immigrant who is present in the United States without being admitted or paroled, or who arrived
at a time or place not designated by the Attorney General.” (Id., PageID.99–100.) On October 18,
2017, Petitioner “filed a Form EOIR 42-B, Application for Cancellation of Removal for Certain
Non-Permanent Residents and Adjustment of Status.” (Id. ¶ 9, PageID.100.) On May 12, 2021, a
hearing was held on Petitioner’s 42-B application in the Detroit Immigration Court. (Id. ¶ 10,
PageID.100–101.) The immigration judge denied Petitioner’s application, and on May 20, 2021,
Petitioner filed a notice of appeal with the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). (Id. ¶ 11,
PageID.101.) Petitioner’s appeal to the BIA remains pending. (Id. ¶ 12.)
Case 1:25-cv-01898-RJJ-RSK ECF No. 24, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/31/25 Page 2
of 6

3
On October 7, 2025, ICE encountered and arrested Petitioner in Michigan. (Id. ¶ 6,
PageID.100.)
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.
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. 	Exhaustion
Respondents argue that the Court should deny Petitioner’s request for habeas corpus relief
because Petitioner has not exhausted his administrative remedies by appealing any unfavorable
decision regarding bond to the BIA.
The Court declines to enforce the doctrine of prudential exhaustion against Petitioner, and
even if the Court were to conclude that exhaustion is warranted, the Court concludes in the
alternative that waiver of exhaustion is appropriate, for the reasons set forth in the Court’s
exhaustion analysis in each of the following cases: Antele Cobix v. Raycraft, No. 1:25-cv-1669,
2025 WL 3562651, at *2–3 (W.D. Mich. Dec. 12, 2025); Candela Bastidas v. Noem, No. 1:25-cv-
1528, 2025 WL 3562638, at *2–4 (W.D. Mich. Dec. 12, 2025); Acuna Sanchez v. Noem, No. 1:25-
cv-1442, 2025 WL 3562577, at *2–4 (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 *2–3 (W.D. Mich. Dec. 12, 2025).
Accordingly, the Court will proceed to address the merits of Petitioner’s § 2241 petition.
Case 1:25-cv-01898-RJJ-RSK ECF No. 24, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/31/25 Page 3
of 6

4
V. 	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).
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 has received notice
of the charges against him, has access to counsel, is scheduled to attend hearings with an
immigration judge, has the right to appeal the denial of any request for bond, and has been detained
by ICE for a relatively short period time.
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,
Case 1:25-cv-01898-RJJ-RSK ECF No. 24, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/31/25 Page 4
of 6

5
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).
VI. 	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.
VII. 	Proper Respondents
Respondents argue that the Detroit ICE Field Office Director is the only proper Respondent
in this action, and they seek the dismissal of the other named Respondents. The Court concludes
that the Detroit ICE Field Office Director is not the only proper Respondent for the reasons set
forth in the Court’s analysis of the same argument in each of the following cases: Antele Cobix v.
Raycraft, 	No. 	1:25-cv-1669, 	2025 	WL 	3562651, 	at *8–9 	(W.D. 	Mich. 	Dec. 	12, 	2025);
Candela Bastidas v. Noem, No. 1:25-cv-1528, 2025 WL 3562638, at *8–9 (W.D. Mich. Dec. 12,
2025); Acuna Sanchez v. Noem, No. 1:25-cv-1442, 2025 WL 3562577, at *9–10 (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 *9–10 (W.D. Mich. Dec. 12, 2025).
To ensure that this Court’s orders regarding a hearing or release will bind at least one
Respondent with authority to act in the event that Petitioner is transferred out of the Western
District of Michigan, the Court will retain the Detroit ICE Field Office Director and the United
States Secretary of Homeland Security as Respondents. The Court will dismiss the United States
Attorney General and the Executive Office for Immigration Review as Respondents.
Case 1:25-cv-01898-RJJ-RSK ECF No. 24, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/31/25 Page 5
of 6

6
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 or, in the alternative,
immediately release Petitioner from custody.1 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. Further, the Court will
dismiss the United States Attorney General and the Executive Office for Immigration Review as
Respondents.
Dated: 	December 31, 2025 	/s/ Robert J. Jonker
Robert J. Jonker
United States District Judge
1 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.
Case 1:25-cv-01898-RJJ-RSK ECF No. 24, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/31/25 Page 6
of 6