govinfo:USCOURTS-miwd-1_26-cv-01712-0

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

 
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 writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.1 
(Pet., ECF No. 1.) For the following reasons, the Court will dismiss Petitioner’s petition for a writ 
of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 without prejudice. 
I. Procedural History 
In Petitioner’s § 2241 petition, Petitioner chal lenges the 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 ordering Respondents to release Petitioner or 
provide Petitioner with a bond hearing pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), where the government bears 
 
1 Petitioner also filed a motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO), seeking a stay of 
Petitioner’s merits hearing w ith the Executive Office for Im migration Review on June 1, 2026, 
and a stay of the removal or transfer of Petitioner during the pendency of these habeas proceedings. 
(Mtn. TRO, ECF No. 2, PageID.180.) In this Op inion, the Court dismi sses without prejudice 
Petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Therefore, the pending motion for a TRO is moot. 
(ECF No. 2.) 
Case 1:26-cv-01712-JMB-MV ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 06/17/26 Page 1
of 4
 
2 
 
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.15.) 
In an Order entered on June 2, 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. 6.) Respondents filed their response on June 5, 2026. (ECF No. 6.) 
II. Relevant Factual Background 
Petitioner is a citizen of Colombia who entered the United States in 2023. (Pet., ECF No. 1, 
PageID.1.) On March 7, 2026, Petitioner was arrested by ICE. (Id., PageID.2.) 
On April 13, 2026, Petitioner f iled a § 2241 petiti on challenging his initial detention 
without a bond hearing in Zapata Rojas v. Raycraft (Zapata Rojas I ), No. 1:26-cv-1194 (W.D. 
Mich.). In Zapata Rojas 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., Zapata 
Rojas I, (W.D. Mich. Apr. 28, 2026), (ECF Nos. 6, 7). 
On May 5, 2026, Petitioner received a bond hearing pursuant to § 1226(a). (Pet., ECF No. 
1, PageID.2.) At the conclusion of the bond hearing, in a written order, the Immigration Judge (IJ) 
denied Petitioner’s request for bond, stating: “[Petitioner] has failed to show he is not a flight risk.” 
(Order of the IJ, ECF No. 1-4, PageID.46.) 
On June 1, 2026, after filing this second habeas petition, an IJ granted Petitioner’s 
application for pre-conclusion voluntary departure, and ordered Petitioner to voluntarily depart the 
United States by July 31, 2026. (Order of the IJ, ECF No. 6-2, PageID.200–203.) Petitioner waived 
appeal. (Id., PageID.203.) 
Case 1:26-cv-01712-JMB-MV ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 06/17/26 Page 2
of 4
 
3 
 
III. 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 in cludes 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). 
 “Under Article III of the Un ited States Constitution, federa l courts have the power to 
adjudicate only ‘Cases’ and ‘Controversies.’” Cal. Palms Addiction Recovery Campus, Inc. v. 
United States, 158 F.4th 726, 730 (6th Cir. 2025) (quoting Mokdad v. Sessions, 876 F.3d 167, 169 
(6th Cir. 2017)). “Part of what Artic le III requires is that there be a live case or controversy—
‘when the issues presented are no longer live or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the 
outcome,’ a case becomes moot.” Id. (some internal quotations omitted) (citation omitted). “When 
the case-and-controversy requirement is not sa tisfied, federal courts lack subject-matter 
jurisdiction.” Id. (citing Mokdad, 876 F.3d at 170.) 
IV. Discussion 
In Petitioner’s § 2241 petition, Petitione r argues that the IJ did not apply the 
constitutionally required burden of proof at Petitioner’s May 5, 2026, § 1226(a) bond hearing. 
Although it appears that the IJ applied an unconstitutional burden of proof at the bond hearing, see 
Soto-Medina v. Lynch, 817 F. Supp. 3d 612 (W.D. Mich. 2026), since filing this petition, Petitioner 
agreed to voluntarily depart the United States and waived appeal of the IJ’s order granting 
voluntary departure. 
Case 1:26-cv-01712-JMB-MV ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 06/17/26 Page 3
of 4
 
4 
 
As set forth in § 1226(a), a noncitizen “[o]n a warrant issued by the Attorney General may 
be arrested and detained pending a decision on whether the alien is to be removed from the United 
States.” 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) (emphasis added). In this case, Petitioner’s removal proceedings are 
no longer pending. However, Petitioner’s § 2241 pe tition only challenges his detention under 
§ 1226 and does not challenge th e constitutionality of his present detention after he agreed to 
voluntarily depart the United States and waived appeal of the IJ’s order granting voluntary 
departure. Under these circumstances, the Court will dismiss the action without prejudice.2 
Conclusion 
For the reasons discussed above , the Court will enter a Judg ment dismissing Petitioner’s 
petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 without prejudice. 
 
Dated: June 17, 2026 /s/ Jane M. Beckerin
g 
Jane M. Beckering 
United States District Judge 
 
 
2 Petitioner is free to challenge the constitutionality of his present detention; however, any such 
challenge raises new claims that were not raised in Petitioner’s original § 2241 petition and which 
are not presently before the Court. If Petitioner wishes to file a new § 2241 petition raising claims 
regarding his present detention, Petitioner may do so by filing a ne w action with the applicable 
filing fee or an application to proceed in forma pauperis. 
Case 1:26-cv-01712-JMB-MV ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 06/17/26 Page 4
of 4

Passage view · GavelSight