Ahmed v. Putra et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
______
MOHAMED ABDULHAMED AHMED,
Petitioner,
v.
MATTHEW PUTRA et al.,
Respondents.
____________________________/
Case No. 1:26-cv-2568
Honorable Jane M. Beckering
OPINION
Petitioner, a United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detainee currently
detained at the Calhoun County Correctional Facility in Battle Creek, Calhoun 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 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, he challenges 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 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 ordering Respondents to
release Petitioner or provide Petitioner with a bond hearing where the government bears 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.12.)
Case 1:26-cv-02568-JMB-PJG ECF No. 12, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/14/26 Page 1
of 4

2
In an order entered on September 17, 2026, the Court directed Respondents to show cause,
within three business days, why the writ of habeas corpus should not be granted. (Order, ECF No.
4.) On September 22, 2026, Respondents filed a motion for extension of time to file their Response.
(Mot., ECF No. 5.) On September 23, 2026, the Court granted Respondents’ motion and extended
the time for Respondents to respond to the Petition until September 24, 2026. (Order, ECF No. 6.)
On September 24, 2026, Respondents filed their response and a recording of the August 27, 2026,
bond hearing. (Resp., ECF No. 7; Recording of Aug. 27, 2026, Bond Hearing, filed on Sept. 24,
2026.) Petitioner also filed a motion for extension of time to file his reply that the Court granted.
(Mot., ECF No. 8; Order, ECF No. 9.) Petitioner timely filed his reply on October 1, 2026. (Reply,
ECF No. 10.)
II. 	Relevant Factual Background
Petitioner is a citizen of Yemen who was admitted to the United States on or about
November 11, 2019, as the child of a United States citizen. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.2.) On or
about December 10, 2019, Petitioner became a lawful permanent resident. (Id.) On April 26, 2026,
Petitioner was detained by Department of Homeland Security (DHS) agents at the Detroit
Metropolitan Airport after returning from travelling to Yemen. (Id., PageID.6.) Petitioner was
detained because of his expunged 2024 conviction in Branch County Circuit Court for possession
of a controlled substance in violation of Michigan Compiled Laws (MCL) §§ 333.7212(1)(c),
333.7403(2)(a)(v). (Id.; Resp., ECF No. 7, PageID.28; 2026 Form I-213, ECF No. 7-1, PageID.51.)
Thereafter, Petitioner was served a Notice to Appear (NTA) and placed in removal proceedings
pursuant to § 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(II) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).1 (NTA, ECF No.
7-3, PageID.72.)
1 After Petitioner was served with the NTA, he filed a motion for relief from judgment in the
Branch County Circuit Court regarding his 2024 conviction. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.7.) The
Case 1:26-cv-02568-JMB-PJG ECF No. 12, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/14/26 Page 2
of 4

3
On August 27, 2026, Petitioner received a bond hearing pursuant to § 1226(a). (Pet., ECF
No. 1, PageID.8.) At the conclusion of the bond hearing, the immigration judge (IJ) denied
Petitioner’s request for bond because Petitioner “failed to show he was not a danger or a flight
risk.” (IJ Order, ECF No. 1-1, PageID.14; Recording of Aug. 27, 2026, Bond Hearing, at 14:27–
15:15, filed on Sept. 24, 2026.)
III. 	Analysis
Respondents argue that the Court should deny Petitioner’s § 2241 petition due to a lack of
jurisdiction and Petitioner’s failure to exhaust Petitioner’s administrative remedies, as well as on
the merits.2 The Court has fully addressed these issues and Respondents’ arguments in Soto-
Medina v. Lynch, 817 F. Supp. 3d 612 (W.D. Mich. 2026). Therefore, for the reasons set forth in
Branch County Circuit Court granted the motion and vacated Petitioner’s conviction, amending it
to a conviction for possession of marijuana. (July 17, 2026 Branch Circuit Court Order, ECF No.
7-8, PageID.104.) Thereafter, the Branch County Circuit Court entered a new order replacing the
July 17, 2026 order, that vacated the marijuana conviction because the court found Petitioner’s
underlying “plea was involuntary and lacked a factual basis under MCR 6.302, and defense
counsel failed to advise [Petitioner] of the mandatory immigration consequences of his plea in
violation of Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010).” (July 31, 2026 Branch Circuit Court Order,
ECF No. 7-10, PageID.120.) The Branch Circuit Court entered a new conviction for disorderly
person in violation of MCL 750.167. (Id.)
2 In Respondents’ response in this case, in addition to raising the above-listed arguments, they also
argue that the Immigration Court should not have held a bond hearing for Petitioner, arguing that
Petitioner is an arriving alien determined to be inadmissible and therefore subject to mandatory
detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A), and that Petitioner should be subject to mandatory detention
under § 1226(c) for committing an offense identified in § 1182(a)(2). (Resp., ECF No. 7,
PageID.32–36.) However, based on the record before the Court, the Immigration Court proceeded
with a bond hearing under § 1226(a) and the Immigration Court made a ruling regarding bond
under § 1226(a), indicating that the Immigration Court considered Petitioner’s detention to be
governed by § 1226(a). (See IJ Order, ECF No. 1-1-, PageID.14; Recording of Aug. 27, 2026,
Bond Hearing, filed on Sept. 24, 2026.) And, at the bond hearing, the Immigration Court did not
find that Petitioner was subject to mandatory detention under § 1226(c). To the extent that
Respondents believe that the Immigration Court erred by holding a § 1226 bonding hearing for
Petitioner, and that instead the Immigration Court should have determined that Petitioner was not
eligible for such a hearing or subject to mandatory detention under § 1226(c), those would be
arguments to be presented to the Immigration Court or on appeal to the Board of Immigration
Appeals, as applicable, not this Court.
Case 1:26-cv-02568-JMB-PJG ECF No. 12, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/14/26 Page 3
of 4

4
Soto-Medina, the Court will conditionally grant Petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
IV. 	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.
Conclusion
The Court will order Respondents to provide Petitioner with an individualized bond
hearing before an immigration judge, at which time the government will have the burden to
demonstrate dangerousness or flight risk by clear and convincing evidence, within five business
days and with notice to the Parties as soon as practicable, no later than 24 hours prior to the
scheduled hearing, 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 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:
Jane M. Beckering
United States District Judge
October 14, 2026 /s/ Jane M. Beckering
Case 1:26-cv-02568-JMB-PJG ECF No. 12, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/14/26 Page 4
of 4