Lemrabott v. Raycraft et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
______
TAHIR LEMRABOTT,
Petitioner,
v.
KEVIN RAYCRAFT et al.,
Respondent.
____________________________/
Case No. 1:26-cv-1697
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, Petitioner challenges the lawfulness of his current detention
and asks the Court to, inter alia, issue a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241
ordering Respondents to immediately release Petitioner. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.25–26.)
In an Order entered on May 29, 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 on June 1, 2026, (ECF No. 5),
Case 1:26-cv-01697-JMB-PJG ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 06/25/26 Page 1
of 5

2
and a recording of the April 24, 2026, bond hearing on May 29, 2026. (Recording of Apr. 24, 2026,
Bond Hearing, filed on May 29, 2026.) On June 8, 2026, Petitioner filed his reply (ECF No. 6).
II. 	Factual Background
Petitioner is a native and citizen of Mauritania. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.7.) Petitioner
entered the United States in 2024 without inspection. Op., Lemrabott v. Lyons (Lemrabott I), No.
1:26-cv-853 (W.D. Mich. Apr. 20, 2026) (ECF No. 9). On February 4, 2026, ICE agents arrested
Petitioner. Id.
On March 16, 2026, Petitioner filed his first § 2241 petition challenging his initial detention
without a bond hearing in Lemrabott I. In Lemrabott 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., Lemrabott I, (W.D. Mich. Apr. 20, 2026), (ECF Nos. 9, 10.).
On April 24, 2026, Petitioner received a bond hearing pursuant to § 1226(a). (Order
Immigration Judge, Lemrabott I, (W.D. Mich. Apr. 28, 2026) (ECF No. 11-1). At the conclusion
of that hearing, the Immigration Judge denied Petitioner’s request for bond in a written order,
stating:
Denied because[:]
On April 24, 2026, a bond hearing was held. Exhibits 1 – 3 were admitted. The
Court also took administrative notice of the Notice to Appear and the [Petitioner]’s
I-589 application that are contained in the removal proceedings.
The [Petitioner] is from Mauritania and entered the United States illegally on or
about February 6, 2024. The [Petitioner] is approximately 29 years old.
The bond record does not contain any evidence that the [Petitioner] was ever
arrested for a crime, convicted of a crime, or was ever subject to any warrants. The
bond record does not contain any records that show the [Petitioner] has failed to
Case 1:26-cv-01697-JMB-PJG ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 06/25/26 Page 2
of 5

3
appear for any court hearings. The bond record does not contain any evidence that
the [Petitioner] missed any immigration appointments.
However, the [Petitioner] has only been in the United States for approximately 2
years and 2 months. Based on some of the letters of support, the [Petitioner] has
been working in Michigan at Amazon for approximately 2 years. The bond exhibits
do 	not 	contain 	any 	other 	financial 	records 	or 	employment 	records 	in 	the
[Petitioner]’s name to corroborate an income and stable employment.
The [Petitioner] does not have a spouse, parent, or child who is a United States
Citizen or Lawful Permanent Resident. He does have an uncle in the United States
that is a United States citizen and according to the bond exhibits the [Petitioner]
was not living with his uncle prior to detention. The bond record does not
demonstrate that the [Petitioner] has strong property ties to the United States. The
[Petitioner] lacks ties to the United States.
The [Petitioner] has two individuals who are willing to sponsor the [Petitioner].
Both are United States citizens. His uncle is one of the sponsors and, based on the
sponsors’ letters at Exhibit 3, his uncle is the only one who will provide a place for
the [Petitioner] to live if he is released. The [Petitioner]’s uncle listed in the letter
the address will be in Michigan. Exh. 3. The [Petitioner] works in Michigan, but
the uncle’s driver’s license was included in Exhibit 3. This driver’s license was
issued on August 2, 2025, and contains an address in Indianapolis, Indiana. Exh. 3.
Also, there were some 2025 tax records filed, and the [Petitioner]’s uncle appears
to have a Kentucky address. The uncle appears to have lived in Michigan for a short
period of time, and no other records were filed to demonstrate the uncle lives at the
address in the letter. Exh. 3. The [Petitioner] did not live with his uncle prior to his
detention. No other records were filed to show the [Petitioner] had a fixed or stable
address prior to his detention. Id.
The only relief available to the [Petitioner] in Immigration Court is his I-589
application for asylum and withholding of removal. The [Petitioner] has filed an
I-589 application in his removal proceedings that remains pending. The [Petitioner]
is single and does not have any children. Based on the timing and manner of the
[Petitioner]’s 	entry 	in the 	United 	States, the 	[Petitioner] 	is 	subject 	to the
Circumvention 	of 	Lawful 	Pathways 	Rule, 	which 	creates 	a 	presumption 	of
ineligibility for asylum. The exhibits do not demonstrate that the rule does not apply
or that an exception applies. The [Petitioner]’s eligibility for relief in immigration
court is weak and his path to lawful status in immigration court is speculative.
Based on the above, the Court finds the bond record fails to demonstrate the
[Petitioner] is not a flight risk. The Court finds the [Petitioner] is a flight risk and
that no monetary bond would mitigate any risk of flight. Accordingly, the
[Petitioner]’s request for a bond is denied.
(Id.)
Case 1:26-cv-01697-JMB-PJG ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 06/25/26 Page 3
of 5

4
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.
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 Respondents. 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 all of the
remaining Respondents.
Case 1:26-cv-01697-JMB-PJG ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 06/25/26 Page 4
of 5

5
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 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: 	June 25, 2026 	/s/ Jane M. Beckering
Jane M. Beckering
United States District Judge
Case 1:26-cv-01697-JMB-PJG ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 06/25/26 Page 5
of 5