UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION ______
LILIANA HUERTA MORALES,
Petitioner, Case No. 1:25-cv-1842
v. Honorable Jane M. Beckering
KEVIN RAYCRAFT et al.,
Respondents. ____________________________/
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 on October 21, 2025, 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 conditionally grant Petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Discussion I. Relevant Procedural History Petitioner initiated this action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. In Petitioner’s § 2241 petition, Petitioner challenges the lawfulness of her current detention and asks the Court to, inter alia, accept jurisdiction over this action, declare that 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) is the appropriate statutory provision that governs Petitioner’s detention and eligibility for bond, and issue a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 ordering Respondents to conduct a bond hearing for Petitioner’s removal proceedings or release Petitioner from custody. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.22–23.) On October 31, 2025, Respondents filed their response to the petition. (ECF No. 5.) Petitioner filed her reply on November 3, 2025. (ECF No. 6.) On December 18, 2025, the Eastern District of Michigan transferred the action to this Court. (ECF No. 15.) II. Factual Background Petitioner is a native and citizen of Mexico. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.6; Hughley Decl.
¶ 4, ECF No. 5-2, PageID.110.) Petitioner entered the United States in 2005 without inspection when she was seventeen years old. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.6; see Hughley Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 5-2, PageID.110.) Prior to Petitioner’s present detention, she resided in Connecticut. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.7.) Petitioner has three United States citizen children and one United States citizen grandchild. (Id.) On August 23, 2025, ICE encountered and arrested Petitioner while she was at work at a car wash in Connecticut. (Id., PageID.8.) At that time, ICE issued Petitioner a Form I-862, 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). (Hughley Decl. ¶ 7, ECF No. 5-2, PageID.111.) On September 29, 2025, the Detroit Immigration Court denied Petitioner’s request for a
change in custody status “for lack of jurisdiction under Yajure Hurtado.” (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.9; see Hughley Decl. ¶ 10, ECF No. 5-2, PageID.111–112.) “On October 22, 2025, [Petitioner] appeared in the Detroit Immigration Court with her attorney for a master calendar hearing.” (Hughley Decl. ¶ 11, ECF No. 5-2, PageID.112.) At that hearing, Petitioner indicated that she intended to file an Application for Cancellation of Removal and Adjustment of Status for Certain Non-Permanent Residents. (Id.)1
1 The parties provide no further information about Petitioner’s Application for Cancellation of Removal and Adjustment of Status for Certain Non-Permanent Residents. 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). IV. Exhaustion Respondents argue that the Court should deny Petitioner’s request for habeas corpus relief because Petitioner has not exhausted her administrative remedies by appealing any unfavorable decision regarding bond to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). The Court declines to enforce the doctrine of prudential exhaustion against Petitioner, and even if the Court were to conclude that exhaustion is warranted, the Court concludes in the alternative that waiver of exhaustion is appropriate, for the reasons set forth in the Court’s exhaustion analysis in each of the following cases: Antele Cobix v. Raycraft, No. 1:25-cv-1669,
2025 WL 3562651, at *2–3 (W.D. Mich. Dec. 12, 2025); Candela Bastidas v. Noem, No. 1:25-cv- 1528, 2025 WL 3562638, at *2–4 (W.D. Mich. Dec. 12, 2025); Acuna Sanchez v. Noem, No. 1:25- cv-1442, 2025 WL 3562577, at *2–4 (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 *2–3 (W.D. Mich. Dec. 12, 2025). Accordingly, the Court will proceed to address the merits of Petitioner’s § 2241 petition. V. Merits Discussion A. Statutory Basis for Petitioner’s Detention Petitioner contends that Respondents have violated the INA by concluding that Petitioner is detained pursuant to the mandatory detention provisions set forth in 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). Respondents, however, contend that Petitioner meets every element for detention under § 1225(b)(2), and that the statute’s structure and history support Respondents’ interpretation.
The Court concludes that § 1226(a), not § 1225(b)(2)(A), governs noncitizens, such as Petitioner, who have resided in the United States and were already within the United States when apprehended and arrested for the reasons set forth in the Court’s statutory analysis in each of the following cases: Antele Cobix v. Raycraft, No. 1:25-cv-1669, 2025 WL 3562651, at *3–6 (W.D. Mich. Dec. 12, 2025); Candela Bastidas v. Noem, No. 1:25-cv-1528, 2025 WL 3562638, at *4–6 (W.D. Mich. Dec. 12, 2025); Acuna Sanchez v. Noem, No. 1:25-cv-1442, 2025 WL 3562577, at *4–7 (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 *3–6 (W.D. Mich. Dec. 12, 2025). B. Fifth Amendment Due Process Considerations Petitioner also argues that her detention violates the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION ______
LILIANA HUERTA MORALES,
Petitioner, Case No. 1:25-cv-1842
v. Honorable Jane M. Beckering
KEVIN RAYCRAFT et al.,
Respondents. ____________________________/
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 on October 21, 2025, 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 conditionally grant Petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Discussion I. Relevant Procedural History Petitioner initiated this action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. In Petitioner’s § 2241 petition, Petitioner challenges the lawfulness of her current detention and asks the Court to, inter alia, accept jurisdiction over this action, declare that 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) is the appropriate statutory provision that governs Petitioner’s detention and eligibility for bond, and issue a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 ordering Respondents to conduct a bond hearing for Petitioner’s removal proceedings or release Petitioner from custody. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.22–23.) On October 31, 2025, Respondents filed their response to the petition. (ECF No. 5.) Petitioner filed her reply on November 3, 2025. (ECF No. 6.) On December 18, 2025, the Eastern District of Michigan transferred the action to this Court. (ECF No. 15.) II. Factual Background Petitioner is a native and citizen of Mexico. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.6; Hughley Decl.
¶ 4, ECF No. 5-2, PageID.110.) Petitioner entered the United States in 2005 without inspection when she was seventeen years old. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.6; see Hughley Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 5-2, PageID.110.) Prior to Petitioner’s present detention, she resided in Connecticut. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.7.) Petitioner has three United States citizen children and one United States citizen grandchild. (Id.) On August 23, 2025, ICE encountered and arrested Petitioner while she was at work at a car wash in Connecticut. (Id., PageID.8.) At that time, ICE issued Petitioner a Form I-862, 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). (Hughley Decl. ¶ 7, ECF No. 5-2, PageID.111.) On September 29, 2025, the Detroit Immigration Court denied Petitioner’s request for a
change in custody status “for lack of jurisdiction under Yajure Hurtado.” (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.9; see Hughley Decl. ¶ 10, ECF No. 5-2, PageID.111–112.) “On October 22, 2025, [Petitioner] appeared in the Detroit Immigration Court with her attorney for a master calendar hearing.” (Hughley Decl. ¶ 11, ECF No. 5-2, PageID.112.) At that hearing, Petitioner indicated that she intended to file an Application for Cancellation of Removal and Adjustment of Status for Certain Non-Permanent Residents. (Id.)1
1 The parties provide no further information about Petitioner’s Application for Cancellation of Removal and Adjustment of Status for Certain Non-Permanent Residents. 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). IV. Exhaustion Respondents argue that the Court should deny Petitioner’s request for habeas corpus relief because Petitioner has not exhausted her administrative remedies by appealing any unfavorable decision regarding bond to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). The Court declines to enforce the doctrine of prudential exhaustion against Petitioner, and even if the Court were to conclude that exhaustion is warranted, the Court concludes in the alternative that waiver of exhaustion is appropriate, for the reasons set forth in the Court’s exhaustion analysis in each of the following cases: Antele Cobix v. Raycraft, No. 1:25-cv-1669,
2025 WL 3562651, at *2–3 (W.D. Mich. Dec. 12, 2025); Candela Bastidas v. Noem, No. 1:25-cv- 1528, 2025 WL 3562638, at *2–4 (W.D. Mich. Dec. 12, 2025); Acuna Sanchez v. Noem, No. 1:25- cv-1442, 2025 WL 3562577, at *2–4 (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 *2–3 (W.D. Mich. Dec. 12, 2025). Accordingly, the Court will proceed to address the merits of Petitioner’s § 2241 petition. V. Merits Discussion A. Statutory Basis for Petitioner’s Detention Petitioner contends that Respondents have violated the INA by concluding that Petitioner is detained pursuant to the mandatory detention provisions set forth in 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). Respondents, however, contend that Petitioner meets every element for detention under § 1225(b)(2), and that the statute’s structure and history support Respondents’ interpretation.
The Court concludes that § 1226(a), not § 1225(b)(2)(A), governs noncitizens, such as Petitioner, who have resided in the United States and were already within the United States when apprehended and arrested for the reasons set forth in the Court’s statutory analysis in each of the following cases: Antele Cobix v. Raycraft, No. 1:25-cv-1669, 2025 WL 3562651, at *3–6 (W.D. Mich. Dec. 12, 2025); Candela Bastidas v. Noem, No. 1:25-cv-1528, 2025 WL 3562638, at *4–6 (W.D. Mich. Dec. 12, 2025); Acuna Sanchez v. Noem, No. 1:25-cv-1442, 2025 WL 3562577, at *4–7 (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 *3–6 (W.D. Mich. Dec. 12, 2025). B. Fifth Amendment Due Process Considerations Petitioner also argues that her detention violates the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process
Clause. Respondents counter Petitioner’s arguments by stating that Petitioner has received notice of the charges against her, has access to counsel, is scheduled to attend hearings with an immigration judge, has the right to appeal the denial of any request for bond, and has been detained by ICE for a short period time. 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 for the reasons set forth in the Court’s constitutional analysis in each of the following cases: Antele Cobix v. Raycraft, No. 1:25-cv-1669, 2025 WL 3562651, 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). VI. 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. 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 or, in the alternative, immediately release Petitioner from custody.2 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: December 29, 2025 /s/ Jane M. Beckering Jane M. Beckering United States District Judge
2 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.