Liu v. Mullin et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
______
XIAOLI LIU,
Petitioner,
v.
MARKWAYNE MULLIN et al.,
Respondents.
____________________________/
Case No. 1:26-cv-1542
Honorable Jane M. Beckering
OPINION
Petitioner, a United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detainee, 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, she 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 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 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 or danger to the
community. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.8.) In an Order entered on May 13, 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. 3.) Respondents filed their response and a recording of the April 23,
Case 1:26-cv-01542-JMB-MV ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 06/01/26 Page 1
of 4

2
2026, bond hearing on May 14, 2026, (Resp., ECF No. 4; Recording of Bond Hearing, filed on
May 14, 2026), and Petitioner filed her reply on May 20, 2026, (ECF No. 5).
II. 	Factual Background
Petitioner is a citizen of China who entered the United States in 2023. Op., Liu v. Raycraft
(Liu I), No. 1:26-cv-910 (W.D. Mich. Apr. 17, 2026) (ECF No. 6). On November 29, 2025,
Petitioner was arrested by ICE agents. Id.
On March 19, 2026, Petitioner filed a § 2241 petition challenging her initial detention
without a bond hearing in Liu I. In Liu 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. &
Jud., Liu I (W.D. Mich. Apr. 17, 2026) (ECF Nos. 6 & 7).
On April 23, 2026, Petitioner received a bond hearing pursuant to § 1226(a). (Immigration
Judge Order, ECF No. 1-2, PageID.33.) At the conclusion of that hearing, the immigration judge
denied Petitioner’s request for bond because Petitioner “failed to show she is not a flight risk.”
(Id.)
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, 817 F. Supp. 3d 612 (W.D. Mich. 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.
Case 1:26-cv-01542-JMB-MV ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 06/01/26 Page 2
of 4

3
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.
V. 	Proper Respondents
Respondents argue that the Detroit ICE Field Office Director is the only proper Respondent
in this action. They seek the dismissal of the other named Respondent. The Court concludes
that the ICE Detroit 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 habeas relief
will bind at least one Respondent with authority to act in the event that Petitioner is transferred
outside the area under the authority of the ICE Detroit Field Office, the Court will retain the
remaining Respondent.
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.
Case 1:26-cv-01542-JMB-MV ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 06/01/26 Page 3
of 4

4
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: 	June 1, 2026 	/s/ Jane M. Beckering
Jane M. Beckering
United States District Judge
Case 1:26-cv-01542-JMB-MV ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 06/01/26 Page 4
of 4