Merchan Moreno v. Raycraft et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
______
JAVIER S. MERCHAN MORENO,
Petitioner,
v.
KEVIN RAYCRAFT et al.,
Respondents.
____________________________/
Case No. 1:26-cv-1071
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, he 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 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 ordering Respondents to
release Petitioner. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.20–21.) In an order entered on April 2, 2026, the Court
directed Respondents to show cause, within three business days, why the writ of habeas corpus
should not be granted. (Order, ECF No. 4.) Respondents filed their response and a recording of the
Case 1:26-cv-01071-JMB-PJG ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/28/26 Page 1
of 3

2
March 6, 2026, bond hearing on April 7, 2026, (Resp., ECF No. 5; Recording of Mar. 6, 2026,
Bond Hearing, filed on Apr. 7, 2026), and Petitioner filed his reply on April 9, 2026, (ECF No. 6).
II. 	Factual Background
Petitioner is a citizen of Colombia who entered the United States on or about April 25,
2023. Op., Merchan Moreno v. Raycraft (Merchan Moreno I), No. 1:26-cv-543 (W.D. Mich.
Mar. 3, 2026) (ECF No. 6.) On January 25, 2026, ICE agents arrested Petitioner. Id.
On February 18, 2026, Petitioner filed a § 2241 petition challenging his initial detention
without a bond hearing in Merchan Moreno I. In Merchan Moreno 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. & J., Merchan Moreno I, (W.D. Mich. Mar. 3, 2026), (ECF
Nos. 6, 7).
On March 6, 2026, Petitioner received a bond hearing pursuant to § 1226(a). (Pet., ECF
No. 1, PageID.3.) At that hearing, Petitioner provided “evidence showing a fixed address, work
history, US Citizen/LPR sponsor, community ties, and no dangerous criminal record.” (Id.,
PageID.4.) At the conclusion of the March 6, 2026, hearing, the immigration judge denied
Petitioner’s request for bond because:
[Petitioner] has been present in the United States for a short period of time.
[Petitioner] has limited familial relationships in the United States. The Court may
consider any relief [Petitioner] is seeking before the Court or [the U.S. Citizenship
and Immigration Services] and the Court does not find that [Petitioner] has
presented 	sufficient 	evidence 	of 	a 	likelihood 	of 	success 	in 	being 	granted
immigration relief.
(Order Immigration Judge, ECF No. 1-2, PageID.25.)
Case 1:26-cv-01071-JMB-PJG ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/28/26 Page 2
of 3

3
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
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
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
April 28, 2026 	/s/ Jane M. Beckering
Case 1:26-cv-01071-JMB-PJG ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/28/26 Page 3
of 3