Sendall Peters v. Raycraft et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
______
JANE SENDALL PETERS,
Petitioner,
v.
KEVIN RAYCRAFT et al.,
Respondents.
,____________________________/
Case No. 1:26-cv-1030
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 her current
detention following a June 20, 2025, order issued by the Detroit Immigration Court denying her
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. (Pet., ECF No. 1,
PageID.19.)
In an order entered on March 31, 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-01030-JMB-MV ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 05/01/26 Page 1
of 4

2
should not be granted. (Order, ECF No. 3.) Respondents filed their response on April 3, 2026,
(ECF No. 4), and Petitioner filed her reply on April 6, 2026, (ECF No. 5).
II. 	Relevant Factual Background
Petitioner is a native and citizen of the United Kingdom who lawfully entered the United
States in 1994. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.10.) Petitioner remained beyond the period of time
authorized by her O-1 nonimmigrant visa. (Id.) In 1998, she filed an immigrant application as an
individual of exceptional ability seeking a national interest waiver. (Id.) The application was
denied and the appeal denied in 2002. (Id.)
On May 3, 2025, Petitioner was detained and arrested by ICE. (Id., PageID.10.) On that
same day, Respondents served Petitioner a Notice to Appear (NTA), charging Petitioner with
inadmissibility under “[§] 237(a)(1)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), as
amended, in that after admission as a nonimmigrant under Section 101(a)(15) of the Act, you have
remained in the United States for a time longer than permitted, in violation of this Act or any other
law of the United States.” (NTA, ECF No. 4-1, PageID.82.) The NTA does not allege that
Petitioner is an arriving alien. (Id.)
Next, Petitioner sought adjustment of status under the Immigration and Nationality Act
(INA) pursuant to § 245(i).1 (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.10.) On June 20, 2025, an Immigration
Judge denied Petitioner’s request for a custody redetermination. The Order of the Immigration
Judge stated:
Denied because: The Respondent has not shown she is not a flight risk. She has
been in the United States since the 1990’s and despite prior applications being
1 Section 245(i) of the INA is a provision in U.S. immigration law that allows certain individuals—
including those who entered without inspection, overstayed their visas, or worked without
authorization—to apply for lawful permanent resident status (a green card) from within the United
States, rather than having to leave and apply through a U.S. consulate abroad. Section 245(i) of
the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), as amended by the Legal Immigration Family Equity
(LIFE) Act and LIFE Act Amendments of 2000 (Pub. L. 106-553 and -554).
Case 1:26-cv-01030-JMB-MV ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 05/01/26 Page 2
of 4

3
denied many years ago, she never departed the United States. She has been here
unlawfully for many years. She believes she may be eligible to get status through a
245(i) but it is not clear why her prior application was denied and she has not shown
she is eligible for this relief. As her relief appears very speculative, there appears
to be little incentive for her to show up for future hearings. And her failure to respect
US immigration laws in the past does not support that she will honor a removal
order in the future if she is released.
(Order Immigration Judge, ECF No. 4-4, PageID.93 (emphasis added).)
On July 24, 2025, the Immigration Judge denied Petitioner’s § 245(i) application and
ordered Petitioner removed to the United Kingdom. (Order Immigration Judge, ECF No. 1-2,
PageID.26–28.) Petitioner appealed that decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) on
July 29, 2025, where the appeal remains pending. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.10.)
Also on July 24, 2025, Petitioner appeared for a custody redetermination hearing. (Order
Immigration Judge, ECF No. 4-6, PageID.100.) The Immigration Judge denied bond. (Id.) In the
Order, the Immigration Judge stated:
After full consideration of the evidence presented, the [R]espondent’s request for a
change in custody status is hereby ordered:
Denied, because: I issued a separate and more detailed decision today finding that
the Respondent is not eligible to be grandfathered in under 245(i). If my decision
is remanded, I will reconsider the bond.
After reviewing the brief and looking into the issue, I am finding that she does not
have any pathway to status at this time. I have ordered her removed and reserved
[her] appeal on that decision and this bond decision. As she has not shown any
legal way to stay in the United States, I am denying bond and finding that she
is a flight risk.
(Id. (emphasis added).)
III. 	Analysis
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-01030-JMB-MV ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 05/01/26 Page 3
of 4

4
v. Lynch, No. 1:25-cv-1704, --- F. Supp. 3d ----, 2026 WL 161002, at *2 (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 before an
immigration judge, at which time the government will have the burden to demonstrate
dangerousness or flight risk by clear and convincing evidence, within five business days and 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. 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
May 1, 2026 	/s/ Jane M. Beckering
Case 1:26-cv-01030-JMB-MV ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 05/01/26 Page 4
of 4