Perez Gabriel v. Raycraft et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
______
AYMER PEREZ GABRIEL,
Petitioner,
v.
KEVIN RAYCRAFT et al.,
Respondents.
____________________________/
Case No. 1:26-cv-297
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 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.6.)
In an Order entered on February 2, 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-00297-JMB-PJG ECF No. 9, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/23/26 Page 1
of 3

2
should not be granted. (Order, ECF No. 5.) Respondents filed their response on February 5, 2026
(ECF No. 6.), and Petitioner filed his reply later that same day (ECF No. 7).
II. 	Relevant Factual Background
Petitioner is a citizen of Guatemala who entered the United States in 2011. (Pet., ECF
No. 1, PageID.4.) On December 10, 2025, Petitioner was arrested by ICE in Chicago. (Id.)
On December 29, 2025, Petitioner filed a § 2241 petition challenging his initial detention
without a bond hearing in Perez Gabriel v. Noem (Perez Gabriel I), No. 1:25-cv-1925 (W.D.
Mich.). In Perez Gabriel I, 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) 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., Perez
Gabriel I, (W.D. Mich. Jan. 20, 2026), (ECF Nos. 6, 7).
On January 27, 2026, Petitioner received a bond hearing pursuant to § 1226(a). (Pet., ECF
No. 1, PageID.4.) At that hearing, “Petitioner argued that he was not a danger to the community
or a flight risk because he had no criminal record, owned a successful business, was an active
member of his church, and had many ties to his community.” (Id.) “The government presented a
Form I-213, stating that Petitioner had given border officials a fake name and date of birth when
he attempted to cross the border as a minor child.” (Id.) At the conclusion of the January 27, 2026,
hearing, the immigration judge denied Petitioner’s request for bond because Petitioner “failed to
show he is not a flight risk.” (Immigration Judge Order, ECF No. 1-1, PageID.8.)
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
Case 1:26-cv-00297-JMB-PJG ECF No. 9, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/23/26 Page 2
of 3

3
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.
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
/s/ Jane M. Beckering	February 23, 2026
Case 1:26-cv-00297-JMB-PJG ECF No. 9, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/23/26 Page 3
of 3