Montoya Rivas v. Raycraft et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
______
MEYSY ELIETH MONTOYA RIVAS,
Petitioner,
v.
KEVIN RAYCRAFT et al.,
Respondents.
____________________________/
Case No. 1:26-cv-63
Hon. Hala Y. Jarbou
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 on January 8, 2026, by filing a counseled combined petition for writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and complaint for declaratory and 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 her current detention
and asks the Court to, inter alia, declare that Respondents’ actions to detain Petitioner violate the
Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), and
issue a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 either ordering Respondents to release
Petitioner or ordering Respondents to conduct a bond hearing to satisfy the requirements of due
process. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.21.)
Case 1:26-cv-00063-HYJ-RSK ECF No. 5, PageID.<pageID> Filed 01/27/26 Page 1
of 6

2
In an order entered on January 9, 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. 3.) Respondents filed their response on January 14, 2026.
(ECF No. 4.)
II. 	Factual Background
Petitioner is a native and citizen of Nicaragua. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.1; I-94, ECF No.
1-1, PageID.24.) On August 2, 2023, Petitioner entered the United States at the San Francisco
International Airport and applied for admission. (Notice to Appear (NTA), ECF No. 1-5,
PageID.31.) She was paroled into the United States through June 12, 2025. (Id.; I-94, ECF No. 1-
1, PageID.24.) Petitioner subsequently filed an application for asylum (I-797C Notice of Action,
ECF No. 1-3, PageID.26) and was authorized to work within the United States (Work
Authorization, ECF No. 1-2, PageID.25).
On September 18, 2025, ICE agents encountered and arrested Petitioner while Petitioner
was on her way to work. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.18.) The Department of Homeland Security
issued 	Petitioner 	a 	Form 	I-862, 	NTA, 	charging 	Petitioner 	with 	inadmissibility 	under
§ 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) of the INA because Petitioner is an “who, at the time of application for
admission, is not in possession of a valid unexpired [immigration or travel document].” (NTA,
ECF No. 1-5, PageID.34.) On December 29, 2025, an immigration judge ordered Petitioner
removed. (Id.) Petitioner has appealed that decision. (Id.)1
1 Respondents do not contend that Petitioner is subject to a final order of removal and, with it,
mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(2)(A). For the purposes of § 1231(a), a removal
order “shall become final upon the earlier of (i) a determination by the Board of Immigration
Appeals affirming such an order; or (ii) the expiration of the period in which the alien is permitted
to seek review of such order by the Board of Immigration Appeals.” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(47)(B)
Case 1:26-cv-00063-HYJ-RSK ECF No. 5, PageID.<pageID> Filed 01/27/26 Page 2
of 6

3
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. 	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 Additionally, for the same reasons set forth in Hernandez Montiel v. Raycraft, No. 1:25-cv-1610,
2026 WL 32076 (W.D. Mich. Jan. 6, 2026), the Court disagrees with Respondents’ arguments that
Case 1:26-cv-00063-HYJ-RSK ECF No. 5, PageID.<pageID> Filed 01/27/26 Page 3
of 6

4
B. 	Fifth Amendment Due Process Considerations
Petitioner also argues that her detention violates the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process
Clause. Respondents counter Petitioner’s arguments by stating that Petitioner is an “arriving alien”
and, therefore “is receiving the precise procedures Congress provided . . .” (Resp., ECF No. 4.
PageID.57.)
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:
Hernandez Montiel v. Raycraft, No. 1:25-cv-1610, 2026 WL 32076 (W.D. Mich. Jan. 6, 2026);
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.
VI. 	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 all of the other named Respondents. The Court
Petitioner’s detention is governed by § 1225 because she is an “arriving alien,” and the Court
concludes that § 1226(a) governs Petitioner’s detention.
Case 1:26-cv-00063-HYJ-RSK ECF No. 5, PageID.<pageID> Filed 01/27/26 Page 4
of 6

5
concludes that the ICE Detroit 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 ICE Detroit Field Office Director, the Acting
Director of ICE, and the Secretary for the Department of Homeland Security as Respondents.
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.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
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.
Case 1:26-cv-00063-HYJ-RSK ECF No. 5, PageID.<pageID> Filed 01/27/26 Page 5
of 6

6
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: January 27, 2026 	/s/ Hala Y. Jarbou
HALA Y. JARBOU
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 1:26-cv-00063-HYJ-RSK ECF No. 5, PageID.<pageID> Filed 01/27/26 Page 6
of 6