Bah v. Bondi et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
______
AMADOU BAH,
Petitioner,
v.
PAMELA BONDI et al.,
Respondents.
____________________________/
Case No. 1:26-cv-596
Hon. Hala Y. Jarbou
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. § 2241.1
Discussion
I. Procedural History
In Petitioner’s § 2241 petition, originally filed in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan, Petitioner challenges the lawfulness of his current detention and asks
the Court to, inter alia, assume jurisdiction over this matter and issue a writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 ordering Respondents to release Petitioner. (Pet., ECF No. 1,
PageID.11.)
1 The Court grants Petitioner’s counsel permission to practice in this specific case on a temporary
basis pending full admission. See W.D. Mich. LGenR 2.2.
Case 1:26-cv-00596-HYJ-PJG ECF No. 11, PageID.<pageID> Filed 03/09/26 Page 1
of 6

2
On February 23, 2026, the Eastern District transferred this matter to this Court. In an order
entered on February 25, 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. 9.) Respondents filed their response on March 2, 2026. (ECF No. 10.)
II. Factual Background
Petitioner is a native and citizen of Mauritania. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.3; Parker Decl.
¶ 4, ECF No. 10-1, PageID.14.) Petitioner entered the United States in or around 1997 at an
unknown location without inspection. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.3.)
Following his entry into the United States, Petitioner filed an Form I-589, Application for
Asylum and Withholding of Removal. (Id.; Parker Decl. ¶ 5, ECF No. 10-1, PageID.14.) On May
14, 2010, an immigration judge denied Petitioner’s application for asylum and granted Petitioner
“voluntary departure,” allowing Petitioner to leave the United States voluntarily to avoid an order
of removal. (Parker Decl. ¶ 7.) Petitioner’s appeal of that order was unsuccessful, and, on May 9,
2011, the Board of Immigration Appeals ordered that Petitioner must voluntarily depart the United
States by July 13, 2010, or the voluntary departure order would be withdrawn, and an order of
removal would be entered. (Id., ¶¶ 7–9, PageID.14–15.) Petitioner appealed that order to the Sixth
Circuit, which initially granted Petitioner’s request for a stay of removal, but dismissed Petitioner’s
appeal on December 7, 2012. (Id., ¶¶ 10–12, PageID.15.) Because Petitioner did not leave the
United States voluntarily, the order of voluntary departure was converted to a removal order. (Id.,
¶ 13.) However, ICE was unable to remove Petitioner to Mauritania at that time. (Id., ¶ 12.)
Therefore, on December 7, 2012, ICE released Petitioner from custody on an order of supervision.
(Id.)
In 2013, ICE agents instructed Petitioner to apply for a Mauritanian passport. (Id., ¶ 14.)
In 2017, Petitioner presented ICE with documentation showing that he had applied for a
Case 1:26-cv-00596-HYJ-PJG ECF No. 11, PageID.<pageID> Filed 03/09/26 Page 2
of 6

3
Mauritanian passport. (Id., ¶ 16.) ICE then submitted a request to the Mauritanian Government for
travel documents on June 7, 2019, but did not receive the travel documents until December 15,
2020. (Id., ¶¶ 18–19, PageID.16.) Due to COVID-19, ICE was unable to remove Petitioner to
Mauritania before Petitioner’s travel documents expired on June 9, 2021. (Id., ¶ 19.)
On August 6, 2025, ICE agents arrested Petitioner when Petitioner appeared for his
scheduled ICE check in. (Id., ¶ 21.) On September 12, 2025, the ICE agent assigned to Petitioner’s
case requested travel documents from the Mauritanian embassy. (Id., ¶ 23.) To date, ICE has been
told only that its request for travel documents from Mauritania is “pending.” (Id., ¶¶ 28, 33,
PageID.17, 18.)
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 Petitioner is subject to a final order of removal. As a result,
Petitioner’s present detention is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1231. However, Petitioner contends that
his detention is unlawful and violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. In response,
Respondents argue that Petitioner’s continued detention for purposes of removal is authorized by
Zadvydas v. Davis 533 U.S. 678, 701 (2001).
Case 1:26-cv-00596-HYJ-PJG ECF No. 11, PageID.<pageID> Filed 03/09/26 Page 3
of 6

4
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). 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6) further provides:
An alien ordered removed who is inadmissible under section 1182 of this title,
removable under section 1227(a)(1)(C), 1227(a)(2), or 1227(a)(4) of this title or
who has been determined by the Attorney General to be a risk to the community or
unlikely to comply with the order of removal, may be detained beyond the removal
period and, if released, shall be subject to the terms of supervision in paragraph (3).
8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6).
In Zadvydas v. Davis, the Supreme Court held that after expiration of the 90-day removal
period, the Government may continue to detain the noncitizen for a “presumptively reasonable
period” of time, which the Supreme Court concluded equaled six months. 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. “[O]nce [a noncitizen’s] removal
is no longer reasonably foreseeable, continued detention is no longer authorized by statute.” Id.
at 699.
The record shows that Petitioner has been detained since August 6, 2025, for well over six
months. And the record before the Court provides good reason to believe that “there is no
significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future.” Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 701.
ICE first requested travel documents for Petitioner on September 12, 2025, and since that time,
has been told only that the request remains “pending.” (Parker Decl. ¶¶ 23, 28, 33, ECF No. 10-1,
PageID.17–18.) When ICE last requested travel documents for Petitioner in 2019, it took over a
year and a half to receive those documents. (Id., ¶¶ 18–19.)
Case 1:26-cv-00596-HYJ-PJG ECF No. 11, PageID.<pageID> Filed 03/09/26 Page 4
of 6

5
Because Petitioner has met his burden of showing that removal is not reasonably
foreseeable, Respondents must respond with evidence sufficient to rebut that showing. Zadvydas,
533 U.S. at 701. They have not done so. There is nothing before the Court to suggest that
Respondents expect to remove Petitioner in the near future. The Court, therefore, will grant
Petitioner’s § 2241 petition.
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.
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
Attorney General as a Respondent.
Case 1:26-cv-00596-HYJ-PJG ECF No. 11, PageID.<pageID> Filed 03/09/26 Page 5
of 6

6
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. 1The Court will order
Respondents to release Petitioner from detention, subject to any conditions that existed under
Petitioner’s prior order of supervision, within five days of the date of this Court’s opinion and
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. Further, the Court will dismiss the United States Attorney General as a Respondent.
Dated: March 9, 2026 /s/ Hala Y. Jarbou
HALA Y. JARBOU
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 1:26-cv-00596-HYJ-PJG ECF No. 11, PageID.<pageID> Filed 03/09/26 Page 6
of 6