Singh v. Raycraft et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
______
GURPREET SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
KEVIN RAYCRAFT et al.,
Respondents.
____________________________/
Case No. 1:26-cv-1136
Hon. Hala Y. Jarbou
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, accept jurisdiction over this action and issue a writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 ordering Respondents to release Petitioner or to conduct a
bond hearing. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.24–25; see Br. Supp. Pet., ECF No. 2.)
In an order entered on April 7, 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-01136-HYJ-MV ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/14/26 Page 1
of 7

2
not be granted. (Order, ECF No. 4.) Respondents filed their response on April 10, 2026, (ECF
No. 5), and Petitioner filed his reply later that same day, (ECF No. 6).
II. Relevant Factual Background
Petitioner is a native and citizen of India. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.6.) Petitioner first
entered the United States in 2005, and at that time, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
issued Petitioner a Form I-862, Notice to Appear (NTA). (See 2026 Form I-213, ECF No. 5-1,
PageID.102.) In April of 2022, Petitioner was granted a voluntary departure, and Petitioner
departed the United States.1 (See id.; Apr. 6, 2022, Order Immigration Judge, ECF No. 5-2.)
Petitioner returned to the United States in December of 2022, and on December 26, 2022,
DHS encountered Petitioner in the United States near the border in Arizona. (See 2026 Form I-
213, ECF No. 5-1, PageID.102.) Shortly thereafter, DHS paroled Petitioner into the United States
“due to detention capacity and/or custody constraints.” (Id.; Br. Supp. Pet., ECF No. 2,
PageID.35.)2 DHS 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].” (See 2026 Form I-213, ECF No. 5-1, PageID.103.)
1 The Court notes that Respondents filed their standard response for immigration detainee habeas
cases (see Resp., ECF No. 5, PageID.63–64 (stating that “Respondents submit this standardized
response to preserve the legal issues and to conserve the Court’s and the parties’ resources given
the high volume of similar habeas litigation in this district”)), and they do not argue that
Petitioner’s prior voluntary departure affects the outcome of this case. (See id., PageID.63 & n.1
(stating that “Respondents acknowledge that this Court’s prior rulings concerning similar
challenges would control the result here if the Court adheres to its prior legal reasoning”).)
2 Petitioner does not contend that he remained paroled at the time that he was recently arrested on
April 2, 2026.
Case 1:26-cv-01136-HYJ-MV ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/14/26 Page 2
of 7

3
Subsequently, Petitioner filed an asylum application, which remains pending. (Br. Supp. Pet., ECF
No. 2, PageID.133.)
On April 2, 2026, ICE arrested Petitioner when he appeared for a scheduled ICE check-in
appointment in Detroit, Michigan. (2026 Form I-213, ECF No. 5-1, PageID.102.) There is no
indication in the record before the Court that Petitioner is currently scheduled for any hearings in
Immigration Court.3
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.
3 The Court notes that some of the exhibits that Respondents attached to their response are from a
different case. (See, e.g., ECF Nos. 5-3, 5-4.) Additionally, in their response, Respondents indicate
that Petitioner was granted voluntary departure on April 6, 2026 (Resp., ECF No. 5, PageID.65);
however, Respondents have not presented any documents to suggest that this is the case, and in
Petitioner’s reply, Petitioner indicates that he was granted voluntary departure on April 6, 2022,
not April 6, 2026. (Reply, ECF No. 6, PageID.114.)
Case 1:26-cv-01136-HYJ-MV ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/14/26 Page 3
of 7

4
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
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.
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,
Case 1:26-cv-01136-HYJ-MV ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/14/26 Page 4
of 7

5
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).
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.
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-01136-HYJ-MV ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/14/26 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 the other named Respondents. 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 United States
Department of Homeland Security as a Respondent.
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,
Case 1:26-cv-01136-HYJ-MV ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/14/26 Page 6
of 7

7
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
dismiss the United States Department of Homeland Security as a Respondent.
Dated: April 14, 2026 /s/ Hala Y. Jarbou
HALA Y. JARBOU
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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-01136-HYJ-MV ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/14/26 Page 7
of 7