Sardaliev v. Noem et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
______
GULAKHMAT SARDALIEV,
Petitioner,
v.
KRISTI NOEM et al.,
Respondents.
____________________________/
Case No. 1:25-cv-1558
Honorable Robert J. Jonker
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 November 24, 2025, by filing a counseled combined petition for writ of
habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and complaint for emergency injunctive relief. (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, accept jurisdiction over this action, 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 ordering Respondents to conduct a bond hearing for Petitioner’s removal proceedings.
(Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.23–24.) In the petition, Petitioner also sought a temporary restraining
Case 1:25-cv-01558-RJJ-RSK ECF No. 9, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/23/25 Page 1
of 7

2
order compelling Respondents to conduct a bond hearing to ensure his due process rights. (Id.,
PageID.2.) Alternatively, Petitioner asked the Court to order Respondents to show cause, within
three days, why the petition should not be granted. (Id.)
In an order entered on November 26, 2025, the Court directed Respondents to show cause,
within twenty-one days, why the writ of habeas corpus and other relief requested by Petitioner
should not be granted. (Order, ECF No. 3.) Respondents filed their answer and response on
December 17, 2025, (ECF Nos. 5 and 6), and Petitioner filed his reply on December 18, 2025,
(ECF No. 7).
II. 	Factual Background
Petitioner is a native and citizen of Russia. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.4; Anderson Decl.
¶ 4, ECF No. 6-1, PageID.130.) Petitioner entered the United States “on or about March 30, 2022,
without being inspected and admitted or paroled by immigration officials.” (Anderson Decl. ¶ 4,
ECF No. 6-1, PageID.130.) Shortly after Petitioner entered the United States, United States Border
Patrol (USBP) encountered Petitioner and issued him a Form I-862, Notice to Appear, charging
Petitioner with inadmissibility under § 212(a)(6)(A)(i) of the INA because Petitioner “is an
immigrant who is present in the United States without having been admitted or paroled, or who
arrived in the United States at any time or place not designated by the Attorney General.” (Id. ¶ 5.)
After this encounter, Petitioner did not remain in USBP custody, and he was permitted to enter the
United States. (See Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.4; Anderson Decl. ¶¶ 9, 11, ECF No. 6-1,
PageID.132.)
On May 21, 2022, Petitioner “filed a Form I-589, Application for Asylum and Withholding
of Removal . . . with the Cleveland, Ohio Immigration Court.” (Anderson Decl. ¶ 9, ECF No. 6-1,
PageID.132.) “On July 28, 2023, venue . . . was changed to Chicago at [Petitioner]’s request.” (Id.
Case 1:25-cv-01558-RJJ-RSK ECF No. 9, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/23/25 Page 2
of 7

3
¶ 10.) Petitioner’s Application for Asylum and Withholding of Removal remains pending. (Id.
¶ 11; Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.2.)
On November 3, 2025, ICE encountered Petitioner and arrested him without a warrant.
(Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.2; see Anderson Decl. ¶ 7, ECF No. 6-1, PageID.131.) Petitioner was
scheduled to appear for a master calendar hearing before the Detroit Immigration Court on
December 17, 2025.1 (Anderson Decl. ¶ 12, ECF No. 6-1, PageID.132.)
Prior to Petitioner’s present detention, he resided in Illinois with his wife and children, and
he worked as a truck driver. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.4.)
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 his administrative remedies. Specifically, Respondents argue
that Petitioner should pursue a bond hearing and, if necessary, appeal any unfavorable decision to
the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA).
1 The parties do not provide any other information about the December 17, 2025, master calendar
hearing.
Case 1:25-cv-01558-RJJ-RSK ECF No. 9, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/23/25 Page 3
of 7

4
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,
Case 1:25-cv-01558-RJJ-RSK ECF No. 9, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/23/25 Page 4
of 7

5
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).2
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 has received notice
of the charges against him, 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 Forms of Relief
Because the Court will conditionally grant Petitioner’s § 2241 petition as set forth herein,
the Court does not address other requested relief in Petitioner’s § 2241 petition.
2 The Court posed a series of questions to Respondents regarding the application of § 1225 to
Petitioner. (See Order to Show Cause, ECF No. 3, PageID.29–30.) Respondents provided their
answers in Exhibit C to their response. (ECF No. 6-3.) Respondents’ answers essentially repeat
the legal arguments that are set forth in their response to the petition. As set forth herein, the Court
disagrees with Respondents’ legal argument and concludes that § 1226(a), not § 1225(b)(2)(A),
governs noncitizens who have resided in the United States and were already within the United
States when apprehended and arrested.
Case 1:25-cv-01558-RJJ-RSK ECF No. 9, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/23/25 Page 5
of 7

6
VII. 	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 the United States Secretary of Homeland Security as
a Respondent. The Court concludes that the Detroit ICE 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 Detroit ICE Field Office Director and the United
States Secretary of Homeland Security 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,
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
Case 1:25-cv-01558-RJJ-RSK ECF No. 9, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/23/25 Page 6
of 7

7
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 23, 2025 	/s/ Robert J. Jonker
Robert J. Jonker
United States District Judge
Case 1:25-cv-01558-RJJ-RSK ECF No. 9, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/23/25 Page 7
of 7