govinfo:USCOURTS-miwd-1_26-cv-01484-0

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 
SOUTHERN DIVISION 
______ 
 
ALASAN COLLEY, 
 
Petitioner, 
 
v. 
 
KEVIN RAYCRAFT et al., 
 
Respondents. 
____________________________/ 
 
 

 
Honorable Jane M. Beckering 
 
 
 
 
 
OPINION 
Petitioner, a United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detainee, initiated 
this action by filing a 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, he challenges th e constitutionality of his current detention 
following an order issued by the Detroit Immigration Court denying him 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.32.) In an Order entered on May 7, 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. 4.) Respondents filed their response and a recording of the April 10, 
Case 1:26-cv-01484-JMB-PJG ECF No. 8, PageID.<pageID> Filed 06/16/26 Page 1
of 3
 
2 
 
2026, bond hearing on May 11, 2026, (Resp., ECF No. 5; Recording of Apr. 10, 2026, Bond 
Hearing, filed on May 11, 2026), and Petitioner filed his reply on May 12, 2026, (ECF No. 6). 
II. Factual Background 
Petitioner is a native and citizen of Gambia. Op., Colley v. Raycraft (Colley I), No. 26-cv-
565 (W.D. Mich. Apr. 6, 2026) (ECF No. 7). Petitioner entered the United States in 2022 without 
inspection. Id. On January 6, 2026, ICE agents arrested Petitioner. Id. 
On February 19, 2026, Petitioner filed a § 2241 petition challenging hi s initial detention 
without a bond hearing in Colley I. In Colley 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 a lternative, immediately release Petitioner from 
custody. Op. & Jud., Colley v. Raycraft (Colley I), No. 26-cv-565 (W.D. Mich. Apr. 6, 2026) (ECF 
Nos. 7, 8). 
On April 10, 2026, Petitioner received a bond hearing pursuant to § 1226(a). (Bond Order, 
ECF No. 1-6, PageID.51.) At th e conclusion of that hearing, the immigration judge denied 
Petitioner’s request for bond because Petitioner “failed to show he 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). Ther efore, for the reas ons 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-01484-JMB-PJG ECF No. 8, PageID.<pageID> Filed 06/16/26 Page 2
of 3
 
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. 
Conclusion 
The Court will order Respondents to provide Petitioner with an individualized bond 
hearing before an immigration judge, at whic h time the government w ill have the burden to 
demonstrate dangerousness or flight risk by clear and convin cing evidence, within five business 
days and with notice to the Parties as soon as practicable, no later th an 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 16, 2026 /s/ Jane M. Beckerin g 
Jane M. Beckering 
United States District Judge 
 
 
 
Case 1:26-cv-01484-JMB-PJG ECF No. 8, PageID.<pageID> Filed 06/16/26 Page 3
of 3

Passage view · GavelSight