Recinos Garcia v. Raycraft et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
______
JOSE ALEXIS HERNANDEZ MANCIA,
proceeding by his next friend
EMELY RECINOS GARCIA ,
Petitioner,
v.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY et al.,
Respondents.
____________________________/
Case No. 1:26-cv-944
Honorable Jane M. Beckering
OPINION
Emely Recinos Garcia initiated this action by filing a pro se petition for a writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on behalf of her husband, Jose Alexis Hernandez Mancia, a
United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detainee currently detained at the
North Lake Processing Center located in Baldwin, Lake County, Michigan. 1 2 (Pet., ECF No. 1.)
For the following reasons, the Court will conditionally grant the petition for a writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
1 The Court previously granted Ms. Recinos Garcia permission to proceed on Mr. Hernandez
Mancia’s behalf as next friend. (Order, ECF No. 8.)
2 Kevin Raycraft, the Field Office Director of Enforcement and Removal Operations for the
Immigration and Customs Enforcement Detroit Field Office, shall be substituted for Respondent
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and Markwayne Mullin, United States Secretary of
Homeland Security, shall be substituted for Respondent U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
Case 1:26-cv-00944-JMB-RSK ECF No. 13, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/17/26 Page 1
of 7

2
Discussion
I. 	Procedural History
In the § 2241 petition, Mr. Hernandez Mancia challenges the lawfulness of his current
detention and asks the Court to, inter alia, issue a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241 either ordering Respondents to release him or ordering Respondents to conduct a bond
hearing to satisfy the requirements of due process. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.5; Br. Supp. Pet., ECF
No. 2, PageID.13.) 3
In an order entered on March 26, 2026, the Court directed Respondents to show cause,
within three business days, why the writ of habeas corpus and other relief requested by Mr.
Hernandez Mancia should not be granted. (Order, ECF No. 8.) Respondents filed their response
on March 31, 2026. (ECF No. 9.)
II. 	Factual Background
Mr. Hernandez Mancia is a native and citizen of El Salvador. (Notice to Appear (NTA),
ECF No. 9-1, PageID.80.) Mr. Hernandez Mancia entered the United States about ten years ago at
an unknown location without inspection. (Hernandez Mancia Decl., ECF No. 5-2, PageID.29;
NTA, ECF No. 9-1, PageID.80.)
On November 7, 2025, ICE agents encountered and arrested Mr. Hernandez Mancia in
Columbus, Ohio, while he was on his way to work. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.3; 2025 Form I-213,
ECF No. 9-2, PageID.85.) At that time, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued Mr.
Hernandez Mancia a Form I-862, NTA, charging him with inadmissibility under § 212(a)(6)(A)(i)
3 In addition to filing the § 2241 petition, Petitioner also filed a motion for immediate release and
a motion for stay of removal pending resolution of the petition. (ECF Nos. 4, 5.) As set forth in
this opinion, the Court will grant the § 2241 petition and order Respondents to provide a bond
hearing or release Mr. Hernandez Mancia from custody. In light of this, the entry of the Court’s
opinion and corresponding judgment moots the pending motions.
Case 1:26-cv-00944-JMB-RSK ECF No. 13, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/17/26 Page 2
of 7

3
of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) because Mr. Hernandez Mancia 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,” (NTA, ECF No. 9-1,
PageID.80.)
On March 13, 2026, Mr. Hernandez Mancia, through counsel, filed a motion for a bond
hearing in the Detroit Immigration Court, but he withdrew his request on March 23, 2026. (Bond
Mtn., ECF No. 9-4, PageID.90; Order of the Immigration Judge (IJ), ECF No. 9-4, PageID.98.)
That same day, Mr. Hernandez Mancia filed another motion for a bond hearing, but he again
withdrew his request on March 30, 2026. (Order of the IJ, ECF No. 9-5, PageID.109.)
Mr. Hernandez Mancia is scheduled for an individual hearing on May 13, 2026, in the
Detroit Immigration Court. See Automated Case Information, https://acis.eoir.justice.gov/en/
(enter 247-018-574 for the A-Number, select “El Salvador” for the Nationality, and select Submit)
(last visited Apr. 15, 2026).
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 Mr. Hernandez Mancia’s request for habeas
corpus relief because he has not exhausted his administrative remedies. Specifically, Respondents
Case 1:26-cv-00944-JMB-RSK ECF No. 13, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/17/26 Page 3
of 7

4
argue that Mr. Hernandez Mancia 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 Mr. Hernandez
Mancia, 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 the § 2241 petition.
V. 	Merits Discussion
A. 	Statutory Basis for Detention
Respondents contend that Mr. Hernandez Mancia 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 Mr.
Hernandez Mancia, 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
Case 1:26-cv-00944-JMB-RSK ECF No. 13, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/17/26 Page 4
of 7

5
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
B. 	Fifth Amendment Due Process Considerations
Mr. Hernandez Mancia also argues that his detention violates the Fifth Amendment’s Due
Process Clause. Respondents counter Mr. Hernandez Mancia’s arguments by stating that he has
received notice of the charges against him, has access to counsel, may request 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 Mr. Hernandez Mancia’s current detention under the mandatory
detention framework set forth in § 1225(b)(2)(A) violates his 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 Mr. Hernandez Mancia’s § 2241 petition as set
forth herein, the Court does not address other claims and other requested relief in the § 2241
petition.
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, and Avila v. Bondi,
No. 25-3248, --- F.4th ----, 2026 WL 819258 (8th Cir. Mar. 25, 2026), which was recently issued
by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. At this time, these non-binding cases
do not change the Court’s analysis.
Case 1:26-cv-00944-JMB-RSK ECF No. 13, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/17/26 Page 5
of 7

6
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.5 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.
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 Mr. Hernandez Mancia is transferred out of the
Western District of Michigan, Kevin Raycraft, the Field Office Director of Enforcement and
Removal Operations for the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Detroit Field Office, shall be
substituted for Respondent U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and Markwayne Mullin,
United States Secretary of Homeland Security, shall be substituted for Respondent U.S.
Department of Homeland Security.
Conclusion
For the reasons discussed above, the Court will enter a judgment conditionally granting
Mr. Hernandez Mancia’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 Mr. Hernandez Mancia with a bond hearing
5 The Court previously dismissed the warden of the North Lake Processing Center as a Respondent.
(Order, ECF No. 8.)
Case 1:26-cv-00944-JMB-RSK ECF No. 13, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/17/26 Page 6
of 7

7
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 Mr. Hernandez Mancia from custody.6 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. Furthermore, Kevin Raycraft, the Field Office Director of Enforcement and
Removal Operations for the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Detroit Field Office, shall be
substituted for Respondent U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and Markwayne Mullin,
United States Secretary of Homeland Security, shall be substituted for Respondent U.S.
Department of Homeland Security.
Dated: 	April 17, 2026 	/s/ Jane M. Beckering
Jane M. Beckering
United States District Judge
6 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-00944-JMB-RSK ECF No. 13, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/17/26 Page 7
of 7