Graciela Torres-Vasquez, Brenda Valerie Becerra-Lagunes, Efrain Rizo-Lara, Lazaro Reyes-Hernandez, Cesar Pelcastre-Hinojoza, Hector Coronado-Bustos, Jaime Enrique Murcia-Moran, Luis Carrillo-Sanchez, and Jose Callejas-Pensado v. Kevin Raycraft, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Director of Detroit Field Office, Enforcement and Removal, Kristi Noem, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Pamela Bondi, U.S. Attorney General, and Executive Office for Immigration Review

E.D. Michigan

Graciela Torres-Vasquez, Brenda Valerie Becerra-Lagunes, Efrain Rizo-Lara, Lazaro Reyes-Hernandez, Cesar Pelcastre-Hinojoza, Hector Coronado-Bustos, Jaime Enrique Murcia-Moran, Luis Carrillo-Sanchez, and Jose Callejas-Pensado v. Kevin Raycraft, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Director of Detroit Field Office, Enforcement and Removal, Kristi Noem, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Pamela Bondi, U.S. Attorney General, and Executive Office for Immigration Review

DecidedDecember 3, 2025

Docket2:25-cv-13571

StatusUnknown

This text of Graciela Torres-Vasquez, Brenda Valerie Becerra-Lagunes, Efrain Rizo-Lara, Lazaro Reyes-Hernandez, Cesar Pelcastre-Hinojoza, Hector Coronado-Bustos, Jaime Enrique Murcia-Moran, Luis Carrillo-Sanchez, and Jose Callejas-Pensado v. Kevin Raycraft, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Director of Detroit Field Office, Enforcement and Removal, Kristi Noem, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Pamela Bondi, U.S. Attorney General, and Executive Office for Immigration Review (Graciela Torres-Vasquez, Brenda Valerie Becerra-Lagunes, Efrain Rizo-Lara, Lazaro Reyes-Hernandez, Cesar Pelcastre-Hinojoza, Hector Coronado-Bustos, Jaime Enrique Murcia-Moran, Luis Carrillo-Sanchez, and Jose Callejas-Pensado v. Kevin Raycraft, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Director of Detroit Field Office, Enforcement and Removal, Kristi Noem, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Pamela Bondi, U.S. Attorney General, and Executive Office for Immigration Review) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Michigan primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Graciela Torres-Vasquez, Brenda Valerie Becerra-Lagunes, Efrain Rizo-Lara, Lazaro Reyes-Hernandez, Cesar Pelcastre-Hinojoza, Hector Coronado-Bustos, Jaime Enrique Murcia-Moran, Luis Carrillo-Sanchez, and Jose Callejas-Pensado v. Kevin Raycraft, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Director of Detroit Field Office, Enforcement and Removal, Kristi Noem, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Pamela Bondi, U.S. Attorney General, and Executive Office for Immigration Review, (E.D. Mich. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

GRACIELA TORRES-VASQUEZ,1 BRENDA VALERIE BECERRA-LAGUNES, EFRAIN RIZO-LARA, LAZARO REYES-HERNANDEZ, CESAR PELCASTRE-HINOJOZA, HECTOR CORONADO-BUSTOS, JAIME ENRIQUE MURCIA-MORAN, LUIS CARRILLO-SANCHEZ, and JOSE CALLEJAS-PENSADO, Case No. 25-cv-13571 Honorable Linda V. Parker Petitioners,

v.

KEVIN RAYCRAFT, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Director of Detroit Field Office, Enforcement and Removal, KRISTI NOEM, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, PAMELA BONDI, U.S. Attorney General, and EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW _____________________________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

Background

Petitioners, although having no lawful immigration status, have resided in the United States for at least a decade, and for many of them, several decades.

1 The parties stipulated to the dismissal of Petitioner Graciela Torres-Vasquez’s claims without prejudice on December 2, 2025. (See ECF No. 9.) During that time, they entered partnerships or marriages, had children, remained gainfully employed or owned businesses, purchased homes, and became part of

their respective communities. Petitioners Brenda Valerie Becerra-Lagunes, Lazaro Reyes-Hernandez, and Luis Carrillo-Sanchez, citizens of Mexico, have lived in the United States since 2000. Ms. Becerra-Lagunes was three years old when she

arrived in this country. Mr. Reyes-Hernandez was nine. Petitioner Efrain Rizo- Lara, also a citizen of Mexico, came to the United States in 1998, at the age of eighteen (18). Petitioners Hector Coronado-Bustos and Cesar Pelcastre-Hinojoza, also

citizens of Mexico, have lived in the United States since 2001 and 2005, respectively. Petitioner Jaime Murcia-Moran, a citizen of El Salvador, and Petitioner Jose Callejas-Pensado, a citizen of Mexico, have lived here since 2015.

Mr. Murcia-Moran was under twenty (20) years old when he arrived. Between August 9 and November 4, 2025, Petitioners were taken into immigration custody following routine traffic stops or targeted investigations. They have been detained ever since without a bond hearing pending removal

proceedings. Petitioners are held at different facilities throughout Michigan. Their removal proceedings are being held before the Detroit Immigration Court. On November 10, 2025, Petitioners filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, claiming that their detention without a bond hearing violates the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Respondents argue that the detention of

Petitioners is mandatory and, therefore, they are not being unlawfully detained. Respondents also argue that the Court should refrain from deciding the merits of the petition until Petitioners exhaust their administrative remedies. Finally,

Respondents maintain that the only proper respondent to each Petitioner’s application for the writ of habeas corpus is that Petitioner’s “custodian.” Legal Standard A district court may issue a writ of habeas corpus to a person who is “in

custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2243, the court, when evaluating an application for the writ of habeas corpus, “shall forthwith award the writ or

issue an order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should not be granted, unless it appears from the application that the applicant . . . is not entitled thereto.” Analysis

The Proper Respondents Petitioners name as Respondents: (1) Kevin Raycraft, Director of the Detroit Field Office for the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”)

Enforcement and Removal Operations; (2) U.S. Department of Homeland Secretary Noem; (3) Attorney General Bondi; (4) the U.S. Department of Homeland Security; and (5) the Executive Office for Immigration Review

(“EOIR”). Respondents argue that the only proper respondent in this case is Director Raycraft, and then only as to those Petitioners held in the Eastern District of Michigan (Rizo-Lara, Reyes-Hernandez, and Coronado-Bustos). Respondents

contend that the claims of the remaining Petitioners (Becerra-Lagunes, Pelcastre- Hinojoza, Murcia-Moran, Carillo-Sanchez, and Callejas-Pensado) belong in the Western District of Michigan and against other respondents, as they are being held in Battle Creek, Michigan. See 28 U.S.C. § 102(b)(1).

Section 2243 instructs a habeas court to direct the writ “to the person having custody of the person detained.” 28 U.S.C. § 2243. “The writ of habeas corpus does not act upon the prisoner who seeks relief, but upon the person who holds him

in what is alleged to be unlawful custody.” Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Ct. of Ky., 410 U.S. 484, 494-95 (1973). As such, the proper habeas respondent must have “the power to produce the body of [the petitioner] before the court or judge, that he may be liberated if no sufficient reason is shown to the contrary.” Rumsfeld

v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 542 U.S. 416, 435 (2004) (quoting Wales v. Whitney, 114 U.S. 564, 574 (1885)). In Roman v. Ashcroft, 340 F.3d 314 (6th Cir. 2003), the court held that the ICE Field Office Director is the immediate custodian of an individual

in immigration detention. Id. at 322. ICE maintains multiple regional field offices to oversee the day-to-day operations of its enforcement and detention apparatus. See https://perma.cc/6EPY-

QUKB. The Detroit Field Office is responsible for enforcement operations and detention in Michigan and Ohio. See id. As such, Director Raycraft is a proper respondent with respect to all Petitioners here. This does not mean that the

remaining individuals and entities are not also properly named as Respondents. Petitioners are being detained under a new ICE directive, issued in coordination with the Department of Justice, instructing that Section 235(b) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b), rather than Section 236, 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), applies to all

illegal immigrants except those admitted to the United States and chargeable with deportability under Section 237 of the statute. See https://perma.cc/6JUM-ZNRJ. Petitioners are not seeking only their immediate release or a bond hearing in this

action, but also ask the Court to declare that § 1226(a), rather than § 1225(b)(2)(A), is the appropriate statutory provision governing the detention of noncitizens like them—that being, individuals who were not at the border or a port of entry seeking admission to the United States when they were detained, but who

were already residing in the country when they were apprehended and charged as inadmissible.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI