Bakhtyev v. Noem et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
______
ABDURASUL BAKHTYEV,
Petitioner,
v.
KRISTI NOEM et al.,
Respondents.
____________________________/
Case No. 1:25-cv-1857
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 January 13, 2026, by filing a counseled combined petition and corrected
petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and complaint for emergency
injunctive relief. (Pet. and Corr. Pet., ECF Nos. 1 and 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.
Discussion
I. 	Procedural History
In Petitioner’s § 2241 corrected 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. (Corr. Pet., ECF No. 2, PageID.43.) Petitioner also sought a temporary restraining
Case 1:25-cv-01857-JMB-MV ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 01/15/26 Page 1
of 6

2
order either compelling Respondents to release Petitioner or compelling Respondents to conduct
a bond hearing to satisfy the requirements of due process. (Id., PageID.25.) Alternatively,
Petitioner asked the Court to order Respondents to show cause, within three days, why the petition
should not be granted. (Id.)
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. 4.) Respondents filed their response on December 31,
2025 (ECF No. 5.), and Petitioner filed his reply on January 5, 2026 (ECF No. 6).
II. 	Factual Background
Petitioner is a native of Uzbekistan and citizen of Russia. (Corr. Pet., ECF No. 2,
PageID.26; Notice to Appear (NTA), ECF No. 2-1, PageID.46.) Petitioner entered the United
States on August 26, 2023, in San Ysidro, California, and presented a valid Russian passport but
did not possess valid immigration documents. Petitioner requested asylum. (Corr. Pet., ECF No.
2, PageID.23; Resp., ECF No. 5, PageID.61.) The asylum officer found that Petitioner had
demonstrated credible fear of prosecution or torture and was issued an interim notice authorizing
parole, which was valid for one-year and automatically terminated on October 2, 2024. (Corr. Pet.,
ECF No. 2, PageID.24; Resp., ECF No. 5, PageID.62; Int. Not. Auth. Parole, ECF No. 2-2,
PageID.50.)
At 	some 	point, 	Petitioner 	moved 	to 	Chicago, 	Illinois, 	and 	received 	employment
authorization. (Corr. Pet., ECF No. 2, PageID.24.) On September 22, 2025, Petitioner was arrested
by ICE while on his way to work. (Id.) Petitioner is currently detained without an opportunity to
post bond or be released on other conditions. (Id., PageID.27.)
Case 1:25-cv-01857-JMB-MV ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 01/15/26 Page 2
of 6

3
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. 	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
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.
Case 1:25-cv-01857-JMB-MV ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 01/15/26 Page 3
of 6

4
V. 	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).
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 six months.
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,
Case 1:25-cv-01857-JMB-MV ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 01/15/26 Page 4
of 6

5
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).
VI. 	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.
VII. 	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.
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 2.)
Case 1:25-cv-01857-JMB-MV ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 01/15/26 Page 5
of 6

6
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.1 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: 	January 15, 2026 	/s/ Jane M. Beckering
Jane M. Beckering
United States District Judge
1 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-01857-JMB-MV ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 01/15/26 Page 6
of 6