Brahim Mohamed v. Kevin Raycraft et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan conditionally granted Brahim Mohamed’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The court held that detention was governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), rather than § 1225(b)(2)(A), and violated the Fifth Amendment because Mohamed had not received a bond hearing; it ordered a bond hearing within five business days or immediate release.

Holdings

1. The court declined to enforce prudential exhaustion against petitioner and alternatively concluded that waiver of exhaustion was appropriate.
2. Section 1226(a), rather than 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A), governs the detention of a noncitizen who has resided in the United States and is apprehended and arrested within the United States.
3. Petitioner's current detention under the mandatory detention framework of 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) violated the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause.
4. The ICE Detroit Field Office Director was not the only proper respondent; the court retained the ICE Detroit Field Office Director and the Secretary for the Department of Homeland Security, while dismissing the Department of Homeland Security, the Attorney General, and the Executive Office for Immigration Review as respondents.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the court should enforce prudential exhaustion of available immigration bond-hearing and administrative remedies.
2. Whether 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) or 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) governed the detention of a noncitizen who had resided in the United States and was apprehended within the country.
3. Whether petitioner's detention without a bond hearing violated the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause.
4. Whether the ICE Detroit Field Office Director was the only proper respondent in the habeas action.
5. What relief and compliance measures were appropriate if habeas relief was granted.

Disposition

writ_granted