Akhmetov v. Noem et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
______
OIBEK AKHMETOV,
Petitioner,
v.
KRISTI NOEM et al.,
Respondents.
____________________________/
Case No. 1:26-cv-44
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 January 6, 2026, by filing a counseled petition for writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Pet., ECF No. 1), as well as an emergency motion for entry of a
proposed order to show cause (ECF No. 2). 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 and will dismiss
Petitioner’s emergency motion as moot.
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
Case 1:26-cv-00040-RJJ-SJB ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 01/26/26 Page 1
of 7

2
process. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.24.) Petitioner also filed an emergency motion for entry of a
proposed order to show cause. (ECF No. 2.)
In an order entered on January 7, 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. 4.) Respondents filed their response on January 12, 2026,
(ECF No. 5.), and Petitioner filed his reply on January 15, 2026, (ECF No. 6).
II. Emergency Motion for Entry of Proposed Order to Show Cause
In Petitioner’s emergency motion for entry of a proposed order to show cause, Petitioner
asks the Court to, inter alia, direct Respondents to show, within seventy-two (72) hours, why the
writ of habeas corpus should not issue. (ECF No. 2.) The Court subsequently entered an order to
show cause, requiring Respondents to show cause in writing, within three (3) business days, why
the writ of habeas corpus and other relief requested in the petition should not be granted. (ECF No.
4.) Accordingly, the Court will dismiss Petitioner’s emergency motion for entry of a proposed
order to show cause as moot.
III. Factual Background
Petitioner is a native of Uzbekistan and citizen of Russia. (Notice to Appear (NTA), ECF
No. 5-1, PageID.65.) He entered the United States on November 17, 2021, at the Tecate, California
Port of Entry and applied for admission. (Id.) At that time, Petitioner “was paroled into the United
States.” (2021 I-213, ECF No. 5-2, PageID.71.)1 Petitioner subsequently filed an application for
asylum, which remains pending. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.3.)
1 Petitioner does not contend that he remained paroled at the time that he was arrested on December
10, 2025.
Case 1:26-cv-00040-RJJ-SJB ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 01/26/26 Page 2
of 7

3
On December 10, 2025, Petitioner was encountered and arrested while working as a truck
driver during a routine weigh station inspection and screening, which included a query “through
ICE enforcement applications.” (2025 I-213, ECF No. 5-3, PageID.74–75.) Petitioner was
transported to the Westerville, Ohio ICE office, where he was processed and detained. (Id.,
PageID.75.) The Department of Homeland Security issued Petitioner a Form I-862, NTA, charging
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].” (Id.) Petitioner is currently detained “without any
individualized custody determination. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.1.)
IV. 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).
V. 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).
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
Case 1:26-cv-00040-RJJ-SJB ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 01/26/26 Page 3
of 7

4
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.
VI. 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,
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
2 Additionally, for the same reasons set forth in Hernandez Montiel v. Raycraft, No. 1:25-cv-1610,
2026 WL 32076 (W.D. Mich. Jan. 6, 2026), the Court disagrees with Respondents’ arguments that
Petitioner’s detention is governed by § 1225 because of the so-called “entry fiction” and because
Case 1:26-cv-00040-RJJ-SJB ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 01/26/26 Page 4
of 7

5
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 less than five weeks.
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).
VII. 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.
VIII. 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
the NTA charged him as an “arriving alien” (see Resp., ECF No. 5, PageID.55–58), and the Court
concludes that § 1226(a) governs Petitioner’s detention.
Case 1:26-cv-00040-RJJ-SJB ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 01/26/26 Page 5
of 7

6
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.
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.3 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. The Court will also the
3 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-00040-RJJ-SJB ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 01/26/26 Page 6
of 7

7
Court will dismiss Petitioner’s emergency motion for entry of a proposed order to show cause
(ECF No. 2) as moot.
Dated: January 26, 2026 /s/ Robert J. Jonker
Robert J. Jonker
United States District Judge
Case 1:26-cv-00040-RJJ-SJB ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 01/26/26 Page 7
of 7