Lopez Jaime v. Raycraft et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
______
JESUS LOPEZ JAIME,
Petitioner,
v.
KEVIN RAYCRAFT et al.,
Respondents.
____________________________/
Case No. 1:26-cv-628
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 a 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. Procedural History
In Petitioner’s § 2241 petition, Petitioner challenges the lawfulness of his current detention
and asks the Court to, inter alia, assume jurisdiction over this matter 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.28.)
In an order entered on March 3, 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
Case 1:26-cv-00628-RJJ-PJG ECF No. 8, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/07/26 Page 1
of 7

2
not be granted. (Order, ECF No. 3.) Respondents filed their response on March 6, 2026, (ECF
No. 4).
II. Factual Background
Petitioner is a native and citizen of Mexico. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.9; 2025 Form I-213,
ECF No. 4-1, PageID.82.) Petitioner has resided in the United States for over twenty years. (Pet.,
ECF No. 1, PageID.25.) He has two U.S. citizen minor children and a U.S. citizen wife. (Id.; 2025
Form I-213, ECF No. 4-1, PageID.84.) Previously, Petitioner entered the United States on multiple
occasions at unknown locations without inspection. (2025 Form I-213, No. 4-1, PageID.83.)
Petitioner most recently entered the United States in or about August 19, 2023. (2023 Form
I-862, Notice to Appear (NTA), ECF No. 4-4, PageID.95).1 Department of Homeland Security
(DHS) agents encountered Petitioner and charged Petitioner with inadmissibility under
§ 212(a)(6)(A)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) because Petitioner is an immigrant
“present in the United States without being admitted or paroled, or who arrived in the United States
at any time or place other than as designated by the Attorney General.” (Form I-832, ECF No. 4-5,
PageID.98.) DHS then permitted Petitioner to enter the United States. (See 2025 Form I-213, ECF
No. 4-1, PageID.84.)
In November 2025, the Oakland County Sheriff’s Officer encountered Petitioner during a
traffic stop. (Id.) He was transferred to the Oakland County Jail. (Id.) The ICE Enforcement and
Removal Operations-Detroit (ERO) moved Petitioner from the county jail to ICE custody at the
1 As the Court noted in its Order for Supplemental Briefing (ECF No. 5), the record documents multiple prior
unauthorized entries and removals for the Petitioner, as well as multiple failures by Petitioner to appear at earlier
removal proceedings. Respondents’ Supplemental Brief acknowledges that DHS could have simply reinstated a prior
order of removal for Petitioner, but DHS chose to proceed with a new removal proceeding here. (ECF No. 6,
PageID.104–05.) Respondents therefore agree that Petitioner is not currently subject to an administratively final order
of removal. Id. Accordingly, the habeas analysis in this proceeding ultimately boils down to the same § 1225 and
§ 1226 analysis the Court has recently applied in hundreds of similar matters.
Case 1:26-cv-00628-RJJ-PJG ECF No. 8, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/07/26 Page 2
of 7

3
North Lake Processing Center. (Id.) ERO served Petitioner with a Form I-200, Warrant for Arrest
of Alien, on November 29, 2025. (2025 Form I-200, ECF No. 4-5, PageID.100.)
On March 17, 2026, an immigration judge ordered Petitioner to be removed to Mexico.
(Removal Order, ECF No. 6-1, PageID.107.) Petitioner may appeal the removal order by April
17, 2026. (Resp., ECF No. 6, PageID.104.)2
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. Specifically, Respondents argue
that Petitioner should pursue a bond hearing and, if necessary, appeal any unfavorable decision to
the Board of Immigration Appeals.
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
2 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-00628-RJJ-PJG ECF No. 8, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/07/26 Page 3
of 7

4
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.
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.3
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).4
3 Additionally, to the extent that Respondents argue that Petitioner’s detention is governed by § 1225 because
the NTA charged him as an “arriving alien,’ the Court disagrees with this argument 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).
4 The Court is aware of Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, 166 F.4th 494 (5th Cir. 2026), which was recently
issued by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. At this time, this non-binding case does not change
the Court’s analysis.
Case 1:26-cv-00628-RJJ-PJG ECF No. 8, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/07/26 Page 4
of 7

5
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, may 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 of 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,
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 all of the other named Respondents. The Court
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.
Case 1:26-cv-00628-RJJ-PJG ECF No. 8, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/07/26 Page 5
of 7

6
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 Acting Secretary for the Department of Homeland Security as
Respondents. The Court will dismiss the Department of Homeland Security, the United States
Attorney General, and the Executive Office of Immigration Review 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 with notice to the Parties
as soon as practicable, no later than 24 hours prior to the scheduled hearing, or, in the alternative,
immediately release Petitioner from custody.5 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
5 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 or only release.
Case 1:26-cv-00628-RJJ-PJG ECF No. 8, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/07/26 Page 6
of 7

7
dismiss the Department of Homeland Security, the United States Attorney General, and the
Executive Office for Immigration Review as Respondents.
Dated: April 7, 2026 /s/ Robert J. Jonker
Robert J. Jonker
United States District Judge
Case 1:26-cv-00628-RJJ-PJG ECF No. 8, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/07/26 Page 7
of 7