Ferrer-Moran v. Raycraft et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
______
JESUS FERRER-MORAN,
Petitioner,
v.
KEVIN RAYCRAFT et al.,
Respondents.
____________________________/
Case No. 1:26-cv-951
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 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 action and issue a writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 ordering Respondents to release Petitioner. (Pet., ECF No. 1,
PageID.14.)
In an order entered on March 25, 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-00951-JMB-SJB ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/20/26 Page 1
of 8

2
should not be granted. (Order, ECF No. 3.) Respondents filed their response on March 30, 2026,
(ECF No. 5), and Petitioner filed his reply on April 2, 2026, (ECF No. 6).
II. 	Factual Background
Petitioner is a native and citizen of Venezuela. (Notice to Appear (NTA), ECF No. 5-1,
PageID.60.) Petitioner entered the United States on or about July 25, 2023, at an unknown location
without inspection. (Id.) After Petitioner entered the United States, Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) agents encountered and arrested Petitioner. (2023 Form I-213, ECF No. 5-2,
PageID.72.) DHS initially placed Petitioner in expedited removal proceedings. (Id., PageID.73;
Notice and Order of Expedited Removal, ECF No. 5-1, PageID.69.) Thereafter, DHS found that
Petitioner had demonstrated a credible fear of persecution or torture. (NTA, ECF No. 5-1,
PageID.60.) 	DHS 	then 	issued 	Petitioner 	a 	Form 	I-862, 	NTA, 	charging 	Petitioner 	with
inadmissibility under §§ 212(a)(6)(A)(i) and 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(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,” and “who, at the time of application for admission, is not in possession of a
valid unexpired [immigration or travel document],” which placed Petitioner in standard, non-
expedited removal proceedings under § 240 of the INA. (Id.) On August 31, 2023, Petitioner was
paroled into the United States under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5)(A), for a period of one year. (Interim
Notice Authorizing Parole, ECF No. 5-4, PageID.79.)
Case 1:26-cv-00951-JMB-SJB ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/20/26 Page 2
of 8

3
In 2024, Petitioner applied for and was granted Temporary Protected Status (TPS) 1 from
February 3, 2025, to April 2, 2025. (TPS Approval Notice, ECF No. 5-5, PageID.82.) On April 3,
2025, Petitioner filed an application to renew his TPS. (Receipt Notice, ECF No. 1-3, PageID.23.) 2
On December 16, 2025, ICE received notice that local police officers had arrested
Petitioner for “assault – felony.” 3 (2026 Form I-213, ECF No. 5-3, PageID.76.) On February 11,
1 Under 8 U.S.C. § 1254a, the Secretary for the Department of Homeland Security
may designate a foreign state for TPS when nationals of that state cannot return
there safely due to armed conflict, natural disaster, or other “extraordinary and
temporary conditions,” unless the Secretary “finds that permitting the [noncitizens]
to remain temporarily in the United States is contrary to the national interest of the
United States.”
Nat’l TPS All. v. Noem, 150 F.4th 1000, 1010 (9th Cir. 2025) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1254a(b)(1)(C)).
“Such a designation permits certain nationals of the foreign state, who have continuously resided
in the United States since the effective date of the designation, to register for employment
authorization and protection from deportation for the duration of the TPS period.” Id. (quoting 8
U.S.C. § 1254a(a)(1), (b)(2)). Additionally, there are other restrictions, including, for example,
that applicants for TPS “must not have been ‘convicted of any felony or 2 or more misdemeanors
committed in the United States.’” Id. (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1254a(c)(2)(B)(i)). Further, “TPS does
not provide beneficiaries with a pathway to permanent resident status, nor does it include any right
to petition for visas on behalf of family members in the United States or abroad.” Id.
2 With respect to TPS for Venezuela, “[o]n January 17, 2025, Secretary Mayorkas extended the
2023 [TPS] Designation by eighteen months, through October 2, 2026. ” Nat’l TPS All. v. Noem,
166 F.4th 739, 751 (9th Cir. 2026) (footnote and citation omitted). “The extension was set to
become effective on April 3, 2025,” the day after the 2023 TPS Designation was due to expire. Id.
(citation omitted). “On January 24, 2025, DHS began drafting the decision to vacate the TPS
extension” for Venezuela. Id. Thereafter, on January 26, 2025, “DHS began drafting a termination
of Venezuela’s TPS.” Id. On January 28, 2025, Secretary Noem signed off on the decision to
vacate the January 17, 2025, extension of TPS for Venezuela, meaning that the 2023 TPS
Designation for Venezuela effectively expired on April 2, 2025. (Id.) Subsequently, on February
1, 2025, “Secretary Noem signed off on the termination [of TPS]” for Venezuela. Id. (citation
omitted). Secretary Noem did not terminate the 2021 TPS Designation for Venezuela, however,
the 2021 TPS Designation “had only been extended to September 10, 2025.” Id. (citation omitted).
3 Petitioner was subsequently convicted of disorderly conduct and received a sentence of 60 days
in jail. (2026 Form I-213, ECF No. 5-3, PageID.77.) Respondents do not argue that Petitioner is
subject to mandatory detention pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c).
Case 1:26-cv-00951-JMB-SJB ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/20/26 Page 3
of 8

4
2026, Petitioner was transported into ICE custody. (Id.) There is no indication in the record before
the Court that Petitioner is currently scheduled for a hearing in Immigration Court.
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 	unlawfully 	detained 	Petitioner 	despite
Petitioner’s TPS. Based on this, Petitioner seeks immediate release, alleging a violation of 8 U.S.C.
§ 1254a(d)(4), which provides that if a noncitizen has TPS, then the noncitizen “shall not be
detained by the Attorney General on the basis of the alien’s immigration status in the United
States.” 8 U.S.C. § 1254a(d)(4). As set forth above, Secretary Noem vacated the extension of the
2023 TPS Designation for Venezuela and then signed off on the termination of TPS for Venezuela.
See supra note 2. The validity of Secretary Noem’s actions regarding TPS for Venezuela is
currently being litigated. In October 2025, the United States Supreme Court allowed the
termination of TPS for Venezuela to take effect pending the Government’s appeal and “disposition
of a petition for a writ of certiorari, if such writ is timely sought.” Noem v. Nat’l TPS All., 146 S.
Ct. 23, 24 (2025).
Case 1:26-cv-00951-JMB-SJB ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/20/26 Page 4
of 8

5
While the Government’s appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
was pending, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California entered an
order granting declaratory relief to the plaintiffs, and declared that “(1) the vacatur of the January
17, 2025, TPS extension for Venezuela was unlawful as was (2) the termination of Venezuela’s
2023 TPS designation on February 5, 2025.” Nat’l TPS All. v. Noem, No. 25-cv-1766, 2025 WL
3539156, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 10, 2025). The court explained that the grant of declaratory relief
in that order was predicated on that court’s September 2025 order, see Nat'l TPS All., 798 F. Supp.
3d 1108, which had been appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Nat'l TPS All. v. Noem, No. 25-cv-1766, 2025 WL 3539156, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 10, 2025). It
also stated that the declaratory relief did not “materially alter the status of that appeal.” Id.
On January 28, 2026, in National TPS Alliance v. Noem, 166 F.4th 739 (9th Cir. 2026), the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California’s finding that Secretary Noem exceeded her statutory authority
by revoking TPS protections for Venezuelans and Haitians. At this time, based on the procedural
history of National TPS Alliance v. Noem, this Ninth Circuit case does not affect the Court’s
analysis in this habeas action. Cf. Nat’l TPS All., 146 S. Ct. at 24 (allowing the termination of TPS
for Venezuelan nationals to take effect pending the Government’s appeal). Therefore, although the
Court will conditionally grant Petitioner’s § 2241 petition for the reasons set forth herein, the Court
will not grant Petitioner’s request for immediate release based on Petitioner’s prior TPS.
The Court concludes that § 1226(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,
Case 1:26-cv-00951-JMB-SJB ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/20/26 Page 5
of 8

6
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
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).
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-00951-JMB-SJB ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/20/26 Page 6
of 8

7
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. 5 The Court
concludes that the Detroit ICE 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 Detroit ICE Field Office Director and the United
States Secretary of Homeland Security as Respondents. The Court will dismiss the Department of
Homeland Security, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the United States
Attorney General, and the Executive Office for Immigration Review as Respondents.
5 The Court previously dismissed the Warden of North Lake Processing Center as a Respondent.
(Order, ECF No. 3.)
Case 1:26-cv-00951-JMB-SJB ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/20/26 Page 7
of 8

8
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. 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. Further, the Court will
dismiss 	the Department 	of 	Homeland 	Security, 	United 	States 	Immigration 	and 	Customs
Enforcement, the United States Attorney General, and the Executive Office for Immigration
Review as Respondents.
Dated:
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.
April 20, 2026 	/s/ Jane M. Beckering
Case 1:26-cv-00951-JMB-SJB ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/20/26 Page 8
of 8