Kozubaev v. Lynch et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
______
MUKHAMED KOZUBAEV,
Petitioner
, v.
ROBERT LYNCH et al.,
Respondents.
____________________________/
Case No. 1:25-cv-1873
Honorable Jane M. Beckering
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 December 22, 2025, by filing a counseled petition for writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Pet., ECF Nos. 1 and 3.) 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, 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
process. (Pet., ECF No. 3, PageID.38–39.) Petitioner asked the Court to order Respondents to show
cause, within three days, why the petition should not be granted. (Id., PageID.23.)
Case 1:25-cv-01873-JMB-PJG ECF No. 8, PageID.<pageID> Filed 01/15/26 Page 1
of 6

2
In an Order entered on December 29, 2025, 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. 5.) Respondents filed their response on December 31,
2025 (ECF No. 6.), and Petitioner filed his reply on January 5, 2026 (ECF No. 7).
II. 	Factual Background
Petitioner is a native and citizen of Kyrgyzstan. (Pet., ECF No. 3, PageID.13, 17.)
Petitioner entered the United States together with his wife, Aiperi Gaparova, pursuant to the CBP
One humanitarian parole process. (Id., PageID.13.) Upon arrival, Petitioner and his wife were
inspected by Customs and Border Protection and paroled into the United States pursuant to INA §
212(d)(5). (Id.) Petitioner was issued an I-94 documenting his parole and authorizing him to
remain in the United States for a period of one-year, from February 28, 2023, until February 27,
2024. 1 (Id.; Form I-94, ECF No. 3-5, PageID.62.)
On March 23, 2023, Petitioner filed a Form I-589, Application for Asylum and for
Withholding Removal, which remains pending. (Pet., ECF No. 3, PageID.14; App. Asylum, ECF
No. 3-9, PageID.69.) On June 10, 2025, Petitioner and his wife had a child who is a United States
citizen. (Pet., ECF No. 3, PageID.13; Birth Cert., ECF No. 3-7, PageID.67.)
On October 22, 2025, Petitioner was detained by ICE in Schaumburg, Illinois, waiting in
a parked vehicle. (Pet., ECF No. 3, PageID.14.) On October 23, 2025, Petitioner was transferred
to the North Lake Correctional Facility in Baldwin, Michigan, where he is currently detained. (Id.)
Following Petitioner’s arrest, his removal proceedings were transferred to the Detroit Immigration
Court. (Id., PageID.15.)
1 Petitioner’s parole automatically terminated at the expiration of time for which the parole was
authorized. 8 C.F.R. § 212.5(e)(1).
Case 1:25-cv-01873-JMB-PJG ECF No. 8, PageID.<pageID> Filed 01/15/26 Page 2
of 6

3
Petitioner is currently detained without an opportunity to post bond or be released on other
conditions. (Pet., ECF No. 3, PageID.26.)
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
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).
Case 1:25-cv-01873-JMB-PJG ECF No. 8, PageID.<pageID> Filed 01/15/26 Page 3
of 6

4
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 is properly treated
as an arriving alien and Respondents assert that Petitioner is receiving the notice, counsel, and a
hearing before an immigration judge, and has no constitutional right to a bond hearing or release
into the United States.
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).
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.
Case 1:25-cv-01873-JMB-PJG ECF No. 8, PageID.<pageID> Filed 01/15/26 Page 4
of 6

5
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 Acting
Executive Associate Director of Enforcement and Removal Operations, the Acting Director of
ICE, the Deputy Director of ICE, the Attorney General of the United States, and the President of
the United States 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 and 3.)
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. 2 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. Further, the
Court will dismiss the Acting Executive Associate Director of Enforcement and Removal
2 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 1:25-cv-01873-JMB-PJG ECF No. 8, PageID.<pageID> Filed 01/15/26 Page 5
of 6

6
Operations, the Acting Director of ICE, the Deputy Director of ICE, the Attorney General of the
United States, and the President of the United States as Respondents.
Dated:
Jane M. Beckering
United States District Judge
January 15, 2026 	/s/ Jane M. Beckering
Case 1:25-cv-01873-JMB-PJG ECF No. 8, PageID.<pageID> Filed 01/15/26 Page 6
of 6