Zeng v. Noem et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
______
AIHUA ZENG,
Petitioner,
v.
KRISTI NOEM et al.,
Respondents.
____________________________/
Case No. 1:26-cv-386
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 by filing a counseled 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 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 and issue a writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 ordering Respondents to release Petitioner. (Pet., ECF No. 1,
PageID.9.)
In an order entered on February 6, 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 February 11, 2026,
(ECF No. 4), and Petitioner filed his reply on February 13, 2026, (ECF No. 5).
Case 1:26-cv-00386-PLM-MV ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 03/05/26 Page 1
of 7

2
II. 	Relevant Factual Background
“Petitioner is a native and citizen of China.” (Parker Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 4-1, PageID.29;
Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.4.) Petitioner entered the United States without inspection in April 2023,
and shortly thereafter, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) agents encountered Petitioner.
(Parker Decl. ¶¶ 4–5, ECF No. 4-1, PageID.29.) At that time, DHS issued Petitioner a Form I-862,
Notice to Appear, charging Petitioner with inadmissibility under § 212(a)(6)(A)(i) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). (Id. ¶ 6.) DHS then released Petitioner into the United
States. (Id.)
On March 6, 2025, DHS took Petitioner into custody. (Id. ¶ 9, PageID.29–30.) On April
21, 2025, the Cleveland, Ohio, Immigration Court denied Petitioner’s asylum application and
ordered Petitioner removed to China. (Id. ¶ 11, PageID.30.) “Both parties waived their right to
appeal this decision, and the removal order became final” at that time. (Id.) After initially refusing
to cooperate with ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO), on July 1, 2025, Petitioner
“complied with completing the request for identification documents needed to obtain a travel
document.” (Id. ¶¶ 13–14.) “On July 17, 2025, ICE ERO submitted a request for a travel document
to [the] Removal and International Operations (RIO) Detention and Deportation Officer for
China.” (Id. ¶ 15, PageID.31.) “On July 24, 2025, ICE ERO completed a 90-day Post Order
Custody Review,” and “[t]he decision was made to continue detention based on a significant
likelihood [of] removal to China in the foreseeable future.” (Id. ¶ 16.) “On October 9, 2025, ICE
ERO conducted a panel interview with [Petitioner],” and on October 23, 2025, the panel
recommended that Petition remain in custody “because of the pending travel document request.”
(Id. ¶¶ 17–18.)
On November 1, 2025, ICE ERO contacted ICE Headquarters “to inquire about the status
of the request for a travel document for [Petitioner],” and ICE Headquarters advised that they had
Case 1:26-cv-00386-PLM-MV ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 03/05/26 Page 2
of 7

3
not received the required physical copy of the travel document request from ICE ERO. (Id. ¶ 19.)
ICE ERO then re-sent the physical travel document request on November 15, 2025. (Id. ¶ 20.)
Thereafter, on December 16, 2025, ICE ERO had to mail “a revised China Travel Document
Request” to ICE Headquarters. (Id. ¶ 21.)
On January 11, 2026, ICE ERO contacted ICE Headquarters “to check on the status of the
travel document request for [Petitioner],” and ICE Headquarters “advised that [Petitioner’s]
Chinese nationality verification remains pending with the government of China.” (Id. ¶ 22,
PageID.32.) On January 31, 2026, ICE ERO again contacted ICE Headquarters, and ICE
Headquarters advised that “it can take months to get a travel document issued” and “there [is] no
way to expedite the process.” (Id. ¶ 23.) To date, there is no indication in the record presently
before the Court that ICE has received any confirmation from China regarding ICE’s “Chinese
nationality verification” for Petitioner. (See id. ¶¶ 22–23.)
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
The parties agree that because Petitioner has a final order of removal, Petitioner’s present
detention is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1231. (See Resp., ECF No. 4, PageID.24; Pet., ECF No. 1,
PageID.4.) However, Petitioner contends that his detention is unlawful and violates the Due
Case 1:26-cv-00386-PLM-MV ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 03/05/26 Page 3
of 7

4
Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.7–9.) In response, Respondents
argue that Petitioner’s continued detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a) remains lawful and does not
implicate the constitutional concerns identified in Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 701 (2001).
(See Resp., ECF No. 4, PageID.24–25.)
Section 1231 provides that “when an alien is ordered removed, the Attorney General shall
remove the alien from the United States within a period of 90 days (in this section referred to as
the ‘removal period’).” 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1)(A). “During the removal period, the Attorney
General shall detain the alien.” Id. § 1231(a)(2)(A). Here, as noted above, Petitioner’s order of
removal became final on April 21, 2025, and the 90-day removal period following the order
expired well before Petitioner filed the present action. See id. § 1231(a)(1) (“The [90-day] removal
period begins on . . . [t]he date the order of removal becomes administratively final.”).
In Zadvydas v. Davis, the Supreme Court held that following the removal period, the
Government may continue to detain the noncitizen for a “presumptively reasonable period” of
time, which the Supreme Court concluded equaled a total of six months in detention. See Zadvydas,
533 U.S. at 701. Following that six-month period, “once [a noncitizen] provides good reason to
believe that there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future, the
Government must respond with evidence sufficient to rebut that showing.” Id.1 “[O]nce [a
noncitizen’s] removal is no longer reasonably foreseeable, continued detention is no longer
authorized by statute.” Id. at 699.
1 The Court notes that the Supreme Court recently held that § 1231(a)(6) does not require the
“Government to offer detained noncitizens bond hearings after six months of detention in which
the Government bears the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that a noncitizen
poses a flight risk or a danger to the community.” See Johnson v. Arteaga-Martinez, 596 U.S. 573,
576 (2022). The Court, however, did not reach Arteaga-Martinez’s constitutional or Zadvydas
claims, concluding that such claims were not properly before the Court. See id. at 583–84.
Case 1:26-cv-00386-PLM-MV ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 03/05/26 Page 4
of 7

5
In this case, when Petitioner initiated this action on February 5, 2026, he had been in ICE
custody for more than nine months following Petitioner’s April 21, 2025, final order of removal.
And, even if the Court calculated Petitioner’s detention as starting on July 1, 2025, which is the
date that Petitioner cooperated with ICE’s request for identification documents needed to obtain a
travel document, when Petitioner initiated this action, he had been in custody for more than seven
months. Petitioner argues that there is a good reason to believe that no significant likelihood of
removal exists because despite ICE ERO’s repeated attempts to obtain travel documents from
China, there is no indication that Respondents have received any confirmation from China
regarding the travel document request for Petitioner, and Respondents’ own declarant indicated
that “it can take months to get a travel document issued.” (See Reply, ECF No. 5, PageID.35.)
And, in this case, it has been seven months, and based on this significant passage of time with no
response, there is no indication that China will respond to the document request in the foreseeable
future. (See generally id.) In response, Respondents provide a general statement, which is not
specific to Petitioner’s situation, indicating that ICE Headquarters has “confirmed that China was
issuing travel documents in response to requests made by ERO,” but “there [is] no way to expedite
the process.” (Parker Decl. ¶¶ 21, 23, ECF No. 4-1, PageID.32.)
Under these circumstances, the Court concludes that Petitioner has shown that there is
“good reason” to believe that “there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably
foreseeable future” because Respondents have been unable to get travel documents from China for
more than seven months, and based on Respondents’ declarant’s own statements, there is nothing
to suggest that China will respond to the document request in the foreseeable future. Zadvydas,
533 U.S. at 701. Because Petitioner has met his burden, Respondents must respond with evidence
sufficient to rebut that showing. Id. Respondents’ sole evidence is that ICE submitted the travel
Case 1:26-cv-00386-PLM-MV ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 03/05/26 Page 5
of 7

6
document request to China, and they make the general assertion that ICE Headquarters has
“confirmed that China was issuing travel documents in response to requests made by ERO.”
(Parker Decl. ¶ 21, ECF No. 4-1, PageID.32.) As noted above, Respondents indicate that “it can
take months to get a travel document issued” and “there [is] no way to expedite the process.” (Id.
¶ 23.) Under these circumstances, Respondents have failed to respond with sufficient evidence to
rebut Petitioner’s showing that there is a “good reason to believe” that Petitioner will not be
removed in the “reasonably foreseeable future.” Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 701. The Court, therefore,
will grant Petitioner’s § 2241 petition.
V. 	Other Claims and Other Forms of Relief
Because the Court will 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.
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 the United States Secretary of Homeland Security as
a Respondent. 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 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,
Case 1:26-cv-00386-PLM-MV ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 03/05/26 Page 6
of 7

7
the Court will retain the Detroit ICE Field Office Director and the Secretary for the Department of
Homeland Security as Respondents.
Conclusion
For the reasons discussed above, the Court will enter a judgment 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 release Petitioner from detention, subject, as applicable, to an order of
supervision within five days of the date of this opinion and corresponding judgment. The Court
will also order Respondents to file a status report within six days of the date of this Court’s opinion
and judgment to certify compliance with this opinion and the corresponding judgment.
Dated: 	March 5, 2026 	/s/ Paul L. Maloney
Paul L. Maloney
United States District Judge
Case 1:26-cv-00386-PLM-MV ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 03/05/26 Page 7
of 7