Ka v. Raycraft et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
______
AWA KA,
Petitioner,
v.
KEVIN RAYCRAFT et al.,
Respondents.
____________________________/
Case No. 1:26-cv-1475
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 deny Petitioner’s petition for a writ of
habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 without prejudice.
I. 	Procedural History
In Petitioner’s § 2241 petition, Petitioner challenges the constitutionality of her current
detention following an 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.
(Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.6.)
In an Order entered on May 6, 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
not be granted. (Order, ECF No. 4.) Respondents filed their response and a recording of the March
Case 1:26-cv-01475-JMB-SJB ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 05/20/26 Page 1
of 3

2
23, 2026 bond hearing on May 11, 2026. (Resp., ECF No. 5; Recording of Mar. 23, 2026, Bond
Hearing, filed on May 11, 2026.) Petitioner filed her reply on May 13, 2026 (ECF No. 6).
II. 	Relevant Factual Background
Petitioner is a citizen of Senegal who entered the United States in 2023. (Pet., ECF No. 1,
PageID.2, 3.) On February 23, 2026, Petitioner was arrested by ICE. (Id., PageID.3.)
On March 23, 2026, Petitioner received a bond hearing pursuant to § 1226(a). (Pet., ECF
No. 1, PageID.4.) At the conclusion of the March 23, 2026, hearing, in a written order, the
Immigration Judge denied Petitioner’s request for bond, stating: “Flight Risk.” (Immigration Judge
Order, ECF No. 1-1, PageID.9.)
III. 	Discussion
In Petitioner’s § 2241 petition, Petitioner argues that the Immigration Judge did not apply
the constitutionally required burden of proof at Petitioner’s § 1226(a) bond hearing on March 23,
2026. Specifically, Petitioner argues that the Immigration Judge failed to require the government
to demonstrate dangerousness or flight risk by clear and convincing evidence. See Soto-Medina v.
Lynch, 817 F. Supp. 3d 612 (W.D. Mich. 2026) (addressing the constitutionally required burden
of proof).
Based on the record before the Court at this time, including the recording of the § 1226(a)
bond hearing, there is no indication in the record that the Immigration Judge applied an
unconstitutional burden of proof at the bond hearing. Under these circumstances, the Court will
deny Petitioner’s § 2241 petition without prejudice.
Case 1:26-cv-01475-JMB-SJB ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 05/20/26 Page 2
of 3

3
Conclusion
For the reasons discussed above, the Court will enter a Judgment denying Petitioner’s
petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 without prejudice.
Dated: 	May 20, 2026 	/s/ Jane M. Beckering
Jane M. Beckering
United States District Judge
Case 1:26-cv-01475-JMB-SJB ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 05/20/26 Page 3
of 3