Sabirov v. Mullin et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
______
ALISHER SABIROV,
Petitioner,
v.
MARKWAYNE MULLIN et al.,
Respondents.
____________________________/
Case No. 1:26-cv-1595
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 dismiss Petitioner’s petition for a writ
of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 without prejudice.
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.11.) In an order entered on May 22, 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 May 28, 2026,
(ECF No. 4), and Petitioner filed his reply on June 1, 2026, (ECF No. 5).
Case 1:26-cv-01595-HYJ-MV ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 06/08/26 Page 1
of 4

2
II. 	Factual Background
Petitioner is a native and citizen of Uzbekistan. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.4; Notice of
Action, ECF No. 1-1, PageID.14.) Petitioner entered the United States on January 15, 2015, as an
F-1 student nonimmigrant and “failed to maintain that status or comply with its conditions. . .”
(Notice to Appear (NTA), ECF No. 1-1, PageID.25; Resp., ECF No. 4, PageID.50.)
On October 15, 2020, Petitioner filed an Application for U Nonimmigrant Status. (Notice
of Action, ECF No. 1-1, PageID.19.) United States Citizenship and Immigration Services
(USCIS), a federal agency under the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), made a bona fide
determination that Petitioner was “a victim of qualifying criminal activity” for purposes of the U
visa application. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.4.) On November 19, 2024, Petitioner’s wife filed a
Petition for Alien Relative (Form I-130) on Petitioner’s behalf, and Petitioner filed his Application
to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status (Form I-485) the same day. (Id.) Both requests
for relief are still pending with USCIS. (Id.)
On November 3, 2025, ICE took Petitioner into custody. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.2.) ICE
issued Petitioner a Form I-862, NTA, charging Petitioner with removability under the Immigration
and Nationality Act (INA) “[s]ection 237(a)(1)(C)(i) . . . [because he] failed maintain or comply
with the conditions of the nonimmigrant status under which [he] was admitted.” (NTA, ECF No.
1-1, PageID.25.) Petitioner was scheduled for a bond hearing on February 25, 2026, but withdrew
his bond motion “so he could obtain counsel and refile.” (Resp., ECF No. 4, PageID.50.) There is
no indication in the record presently before the Court that Petitioner requested a bond hearing after
obtaining counsel or that any other hearing in Immigration Court is scheduled for Petitioner.
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.
Case 1:26-cv-01595-HYJ-MV ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 06/08/26 Page 2
of 4

3
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. 	Discussion
Noncitizens “who are held in custody under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), while their petitions for
review of their removal orders are pending, are entitled to a bond hearing before an immigration
judge.” Leonardo v. Crawford, 646 F.3d 1157, 1160 (9th Cir. 2011) (citation omitted); see, e.g.,
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).
As relief in this action, Petitioner asks the Court to declare “Petitioner’s continued
detention violates the Due Process Clause and order Petitioner’s immediate release under
reasonable conditions of supervision.” (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.11.) Respondents, through
counsel, acknowledge that § 1226 governs Petitioner’s present detention because he overstayed
his visa after being lawfully admitted to the United States and that Petitioner would be entitled to
a § 1226(a) bond hearing if Petitioner requested it. (Resp., ECF No. 4, Page 54–55.) There is no
indication in the record presently before the Court that Petitioner has requested a bond hearing
under § 1226(a) in Immigration Court. In light of Respondents’ concession that, if requested,
Case 1:26-cv-01595-HYJ-MV ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 06/08/26 Page 3
of 4

4
Petitioner would receive § 1226(a) bond hearing, the Court will dismiss this action without
prejudice.1
V. 	Conclusion
For the reasons discussed above, the Court will enter a judgment dismissing Petitioner’s
petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 without prejudice.
Dated: June 8, 2026 	/s/ Hala Y. Jarbou
HALA Y. JARBOU
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
1 If contrary to Respondents’ concession in their brief, when Petitioner requests a bond hearing in
Immigration Court, Respondents do not in fact provide Petitioner with a § 1226(a) bond hearing
where the Immigration Judge concludes that he or she has jurisdiction to consider the bond request,
then Petitioner would be free to file a new § 2241 petition requesting that this Court order
Respondents to provide Petitioner with a § 1226(a) bond hearing.
Case 1:26-cv-01595-HYJ-MV ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 06/08/26 Page 4
of 4