De Leon Ramirez v. Raycraft et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
______
JACOBO EVERARDO DE LEON
RAMIREZ,
Petitioner,
v.
KEVIN RAYCRAFT et al.,
Respondents.
____________________________/
Case No. 1:26-cv-1157
Honorable Paul L. Maloney
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 matter and issue a writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 ordering Respondents to release Petitioner or provide
Petitioner with a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) that satisfies due process. (Pet., ECF
No. 1, PageID.21–22.)
In an order entered on April 14, 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-01157-PLM-PJG ECF No. 8, PageID.<pageID> Filed 06/02/26 Page 1
of 6

2
not be granted. (Order, ECF No. 4.) Respondents filed their response on April 17, 2026, (ECF
No. 5). Petitioner filed his reply on April 21, 2026. (ECF No. 6.)
II. 	Factual Background
Petitioner is a native and citizen of Guatemala who resided in the United States since 1989.
(Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.6, 8; 2008 Notice to Appear (NTA), ECF No. 5-1, PageID.100.)
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) encountered Petitioner in Nogales, Arizona on February
11, 2008. (2008 NTA, ECF No. 5-1, PageID.100.) DHS charged Petitioner with inadmissibility
under § 212(a)(6)(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.” (Id.)
Petitioner was placed in removal proceedings; however, the removal proceedings were terminated
on June 4, 2008. (Order Immigration Judge, ECF No. 5-3, PageID.108.)
On September 23, 2025, ICE detained and arrested Petitioner outside his residence in
Grand Rapids, Michigan.1 (2025 Form I-213, ECF No. 5-2, PageID.104; Warrant for Arrest of
Alien, ECF No. 5-4, PageID.110.) DHS served Petitioner with a second 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
1 Respondents do not argue that Petitioner is subject to mandatory detention pursuant to 8 U.S.C.
§ 1226(c), and there is nothing in the record presently before the Court to suggest that Petitioner
was a law enforcement target for any reason other than his status as a noncitizen. (See 2025 Form
I-213, ECF No. 5-2, PageID.103–06.)
Case 1:26-cv-01157-PLM-PJG ECF No. 8, PageID.<pageID> Filed 06/02/26 Page 2
of 6

3
possession of a valid unexpired [immigration or travel document].” (2025 NTA, ECF No. 5-5,
PageID.113–16.)
On November 5, 2025, Petitioner appeared before the Detroit Immigration Court for a
custody redetermination proceeding. (Order Immigration Judge, ECF No. 5-6, No.118.) The
immigration judge entered a written order denying to release Petitioner from custody. (Id.) The
order stated:
Denied, because[:]
No jurisdiction. Matter of Yajure Hurtado, 29 I&N Dec. 216 (BIA 2025).
(Id.)
DHS scheduled an internet-based hearing for Petitioner before the Detroit Immigration
Court for April 17, 2026.2 (Notice of Internet-Based Hearing, ECF No. 5-8, PageID.125.)
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).
2 The parties did not provide any details or results of the Internet-Based Hearing.
Case 1:26-cv-01157-PLM-PJG ECF No. 8, PageID.<pageID> Filed 06/02/26 Page 3
of 6

4
IV. 	Merits Discussion
A. 	Statutory Basis for Petitioner’s Detention
Based on the facts presented by the parties, and the reasoning of the Sixth Circuit Court of
Appeals in Lopez-Campos v. Raycraft, Nos. 25-1965, 1969, 1978, 1982, 2026 WL 1283891 (6th
Cir. May 11, 2026), the Court concludes that § 1226(a), not § 1225(b)(2)(A), governs Petitioner’s
detention.
B. 	Fifth Amendment Due Process Considerations
The Fifth Amendment guarantees that “[n]o person shall . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or
property, without due process of law.” U.S. Const. amend. V. In Lopez-Campos, the Sixth Circuit
Court of Appeals explained:
Noncitizens who have “passed through our gates, even illegally, may be expelled
only after proceedings conforming to traditional standards of fairness encompassed
in due process of law.” Shaughnessy v. United States ex rel. Mezei, 345 U.S. 206,
212 (1953); see also Yamataya v. Fisher, 189 U.S. 86, 100–01 (1903). Thus,
noncitizens within the interior of the United States are entitled to the protections of
the Due Process Clause, “whether their presence here is lawful, unlawful,
temporary, or permanent.” Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 693 (2001). “It is well
established that the Fifth Amendment entitles aliens to due process of law in
[removal] proceedings.” Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292, 306 (1993); see also
Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510, 523 (2003). Consequently, the government may not
deny “notice” or “an opportunity to be heard” to a noncitizen “who has entered the
country, and has become subject in all respects to its jurisdiction, and a part of its
population, although alleged to be illegally here.” Yamataya, 189 U.S. at 100–01.
Lopez-Campos, 2026 WL 1283891, at *11. The Sixth Circuit therefore upheld the lower courts’
determinations the government’s detention of the Lopez-Campos petitioners “without bond under
§ 1226(a) was a deprivation of liberty that violated [their] due process rights.” Id. at *13.
Petitioner is likewise detained under § 1226(a) and has been denied an individualized bond
hearing. Therefore, 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. See id.; see also Antele Cobix v. Raycraft, No. 1:25-cv-1669, 2025 WL 3562651,
Case 1:26-cv-01157-PLM-PJG ECF No. 8, PageID.<pageID> Filed 06/02/26 Page 4
of 6

5
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).
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. 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 Secretary
for the Department of Homeland Security as Respondents. The Court will dismiss the Department
of Homeland Security, the United States Attorney General, and the Executive Office for
Immigration Review as Respondents.
Case 1:26-cv-01157-PLM-PJG ECF No. 8, PageID.<pageID> Filed 06/02/26 Page 5
of 6

6
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.3 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. The Court will dismiss
the Department of Homeland Security, the United States Attorney General, and the Executive
Office for Immigration Review as Respondents in this matter.
Dated: 	June 2, 2026 	/s/ Paul L. Maloney
Paul L. Maloney
United States District Judge
3 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-01157-PLM-PJG ECF No. 8, PageID.<pageID> Filed 06/02/26 Page 6
of 6