Waziri v. Raycraft et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
______
ATIQULLAH WAZIRI,
Petitioner,
v.
KEVIN RAYCRAFT et al.,
Respondents.
____________________________/
Case No. 1:26-cv-98
Honorable Paul L. Maloney
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 January 10, 2026, 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. 	Procedural History
In Petitioner’s § 2241 petition, Petitioner challenges the lawfulness of his current detention
and asks the Court to, inter alia, declare that Respondents’ actions to detain Petitioner violate the
Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), and
issue a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 either ordering Respondents to release
Petitioner or ordering Respondents to conduct a bond hearing to satisfy the requirements of due
process. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.29–30.)
Case 1:26-cv-00098-PLM-RSK ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 01/30/26 Page 1
of 6

2
In an order entered on January 14, 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. 3.) Respondents filed their response on January 14, 2026,
(ECF No. 4), and Petitioner filed his reply on January 24, 2026, (ECF No. 5).
II. 	Factual Background
Petitioner is a native and citizen of Afghanistan. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.8; I-213, ECF
No. 4-1, PageID.50.) On May 28, 2024, Petitioner appeared at the San Ysidro Port of Entry for a
valid appointment made on the CBP One mobile application and applied for entry into the United
States. (2024 I-213, ECF No. 4-1, PageID.51.) The Department of Homeland Security charged
Petitioner with inadmissibility under § 212 (a)(7)(A)(i)(I) of the INA because Petitioner is an
immigrant “who, at the time of application for admission, is not in possession of a valid unexpired
[immigration or travel document].” (NTA, ECF No. 4-2, PageID.45.) Petitioner was then “paroled
into the United States” pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5). (2024 I-213, ECF No. 4-1, PageID.51
(indicating that Petitioner’s “Class of Admission” as “DT”)1 ).2
On December 23, 2025, ICE agents arrested Petitioner when he reported to the Detroit
Field Office of ICE. (2025 I-213, ECF No. 4-3, PageID.59.)
1 See United States Citizenship and Immigration Services Guidance Website, https://www.uscis.
gov/save/current-user-agencies/guidance/faqs-on-the-effect-of-changes-to-parole-and-temporary-
protected-status-tps-for-save-agencies (under “Non-Categorical Parole” heading, select “What
does ‘Non-Categorical Parole’ mean?”) (“Aliens who are outside of the United States may
request to be paroled into the United States based on urgent humanitarian reasons or a significant
public benefit. These aliens are not paroled into the United States under a categorical parole
program or process. Often, the Class of Admission (COA) for these aliens is ‘DT’ though other
parole related COAs may have been used.”).
2 Petitioner does not provide the Court with any details regarding the length of Petitioner’s parole
or facts that would indicate that it had not expired prior to Petitioner’s December 23, 2025, arrest
and detention.
Case 1:26-cv-00098-PLM-RSK ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 01/30/26 Page 2
of 6

3
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. 	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,
Case 1:26-cv-00098-PLM-RSK ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 01/30/26 Page 3
of 6

4
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).3
B. 	Fifth Amendment Due Process Considerations
Petitioner also argues that his detention violates the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process
Clause. Respondents counter Petitioner’s arguments by stating that Petitioner is an “arriving alien”
and, therefore, is “receiving the precise procedures Congress provided—including notice, counsel,
and a hearing before an immigration judge. . .” (Resp., ECF No. 4, PageID.47.) As noted above,
for the reasons previously set forth in detail in Hernandez Montiel v. Raycraft, No. 1:25-cv-1610,
2026 WL 32076 (W.D. Mich. Jan. 6, 2026), Petitioner is not an “arriving alien” for purposes of
§ 1225(b.)
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).
V. 	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.
3 Respondents contend that Petitioner is properly detained as an “arriving alien.” For the reasons
previously set forth in detail in Hernandez Montiel v. Raycraft, No. 1:25-cv-1610, 2026 WL 32076
(W.D. Mich. Jan. 6, 2026), Petitioner is not an “arriving alien” for purposes of § 1225(b.)
Case 1:26-cv-00098-PLM-RSK ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 01/30/26 Page 4
of 6

5
VI. 	Proper Respondents
Respondents argue that the Detroit ICE Field Office Director is the only proper Respondent
in this action, and they seek the dismissal of all 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 a hearing or release will bind at least one
Respondent with authority to act in the event that Petitioner is transferred out of the Western
District of Michigan, the Court will retain the ICE Detroit Field Office Director and the Secretary
for the Department of Homeland Security as Respondents. The Court will dismiss the United States
Department of Homeland Security, the United States Attorney General, and the Executive Office
for Immigration Review as Respondents.
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,
Case 1:26-cv-00098-PLM-RSK ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 01/30/26 Page 5
of 6

6
immediately release Petitioner from custody.4 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. Further, the Court will
dismiss the United States Department of Homeland Security, the United States Attorney General,
and the Executive Office for Immigration Review as Respondents.
Dated: 	January 30, 2026 	/s/ Paul L. Maloney
Paul L. Maloney
United States District Judge
4 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.
Case 1:26-cv-00098-PLM-RSK ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 01/30/26 Page 6
of 6