Jamshid Khogiani v. Kevin Raycraft, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Director of Detroit Field Office, Enforcement and Removal, Kristi Noem, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Pamela Bondi, and Executive Office for Immigration Review

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan denied the respondents’ motion for reconsideration of an earlier order granting habeas relief to Jamshid Khogiani. The court held that jurisdiction was proper in the Eastern District, that the petitioner was not subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1), and that he was entitled to a bond hearing under § 1226(a). The court lifted its stay and ordered a bond hearing by January 5, 2026, or the petitioner’s release, along with a compliance status report.

Holdings

1. Reconsideration was not warranted because respondents did not show that the court's failure to await a reply brief constituted a qualifying mistake that would change the outcome.
2. Jurisdiction was proper in the Eastern District of Michigan because the immediate custodian with power over petitioner was the ICE Detroit Field Office Director, who was a respondent in the case.
3. Petitioner was not subject to the mandatory-detention provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1) because expedited removal proceedings had been terminated and his case proceeded in regular removal proceedings under INA § 240; his detention without a bond hearing was unlawful.
4. Petitioner was entitled to a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), and respondents were ordered to provide the hearing before an immigration judge or release petitioner.
5. The deadline was not set aside as unreasonable; after the initial deadline was stayed, the court ordered respondents to provide a bond hearing by 5:00 p.m. on January 5, 2026, based on petitioner's prolonged unlawful detention.

Questions Presented

1. Whether reconsideration was warranted because the court ruled on respondents' motion to dismiss or transfer before respondents filed a reply brief.
2. Whether the Eastern District of Michigan had jurisdiction over the § 2241 petition despite petitioner's detention in the Western District of Michigan.
3. Whether petitioner's detention was governed by the mandatory-detention provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1) after expedited removal proceedings were terminated and the case proceeded under INA § 240.
4. Whether petitioner was entitled to a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a).
5. Whether the court's deadline for the bond hearing was unreasonable.

Disposition

other