Muravyev v. Margolin et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
______
ALEKSEY MURAVYEV,
Petitioner,
v.
DAREN K. MARGOLIN et al.,
Respondents.
____________________________/
Case No. 1:26-cv-242
Honorable Jane M. Beckering
OPINION
Petitioner, a United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detainee currently
detained at the Calhoun County Correctional Facility in Battle Creek, 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.
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.12.)
In an Order entered on January 29, 2026, the Court directed Respondents to show cause,
within three business days, why the writ of habeas corpus and other relief requested by Petitioner
Case 1:26-cv-00242-JMB-RSK ECF No. 9, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/17/26 Page 1
of 3

2
should not be granted. (Order, ECF No. 5.) Respondents filed their response on February 3, 2026,
(ECF No. 6.), and Petitioner filed his reply on February 9, 2026, (ECF No. 7).
II. 	Relevant Factual Background
Petitioner is a citizen of Ukraine who “entered the United States with a visa [o]n February
27, 1999.” (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.4.) On October 16, 2025, ICE encountered Petitioner at a
home improvement store during “Operation Midway Blitz” in Chicago, Illinois, and ICE took
Petitioner into custody at that time. (Id., PageID.4–5.) Thereafter, Petitioner was served with a
Form I-862, Notice to Appear, which initiated removal proceedings. (Id., PageID.5; NTA, ECF
No. 6-1, PageID.100.)
Petitioner requested a bond hearing, and a hearing pursuant to § 1226(a) was held on
December 3, 2025, in the Detroit Immigration Court. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.5; Order
Immigration Judge, ECF No. 1-4.) At the hearing, the Immigration Judge denied Petitioner’s
request for bond “because [Petitioner] failed to show he was not a flight risk.” (Id.) Following this
hearing, Petitioner filed an application for asylum, and Petitioner submitted a new motion for bond
based on the “material change in circumstances” due to his filing an asylum application. (Pet., ECF
No. 1, PageID.5.) The Detroit Immigration Court denied this request. (Id.)
III. 	Discussion
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
the merits. The Court has fully addressed these issues and Respondents’ arguments in Soto-Medina
v. Lynch et al., No. 1:25-cv-1704 (W.D. Mich. Jan. 21, 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.
Case 1:26-cv-00242-JMB-RSK ECF No. 9, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/17/26 Page 2
of 3

3
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
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 an individualized bond hearing, within
five business days, before an immigration judge, at which time the government will have the
burden to demonstrate dangerousness or flight risk by clear and convincing evidence, 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:
Jane M. Beckering
United States District Judge
February 17, 2026 	/s/ Jane M. Beckering
Case 1:26-cv-00242-JMB-RSK ECF No. 9, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/17/26 Page 3
of 3