Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
BOBIR KHODJAEV, 	:
:
Petitioner, 	:
:
:
:
PETITION FOR
WRIT OF HABEAS
CORPUS
v. 	: 	No. 26-69
:
MICHAEL ROSE, Field Office
Director of Enforcement and
Removal Operations,
Philadelphia Field Office,
Immigrations and Customs
Enforcement et al.,
:
:
:
:
Respondents. 	:
M EMORANDUM
Petitioner Bobir Khodjaev filed this petition for a writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Mr. Khodjaev is currently detained
Case 2:26-cv-00069-AB Document 5 Filed 01/09/26 Page 1 of 8

2
by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) pursuant to the
mandatory detention provision in Section 235 of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (“INA”). 	8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). 	Mr. Khodjaev alleges
that his detention is unlawful because Section 235 does not apply to
individuals like him: noncitizens who are residing in the United States.
As a person who has been living in the United States since September
2022, Mr. Khodjaev argues that he should have been detained, if at all,
under Section 236 of the INA. 	8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). 	Consequently, he
asserts that he is entitled to a bond hearing before a neutral adjudicator.
In recent months, numerous district courts have addressed the same
issue raised in Mr. Khodjaev’s Petition. 	At least 350 decisions from
district courts1—including over 25 decisions from this District2—find that
1 See Barco Mercado v. Francis, No. 25-6582, slip op. at 9-10 & n.22 (S.D.N.Y.
Nov. 26, 2025) (counting 350 cases decided by over 160 different judges granting
habeas relief to similar Petitioners).
2 See, e.g., Patel v. McShane, Civ. 25-cv-5975 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 20, 2025) (Brody,
J.); Ndiaye v. Jamison, No. 25-cv-6007, 2025 WL 3229307 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 19,
2025) (Sánchez, J.); Demirel v. Fed. Det. Ctr. Philadelphia, No. 25-cv-5488, 2025
WL 3218243 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 18, 2025) (Diamond, J.); Kashranov v. Jamison, No.
25-cv-5555, 2025 WL 3188399, at *4-7 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 14, 2025) (Wolson, J.);
Cantu-Cortes v. O’Neill, et al., No. 25-cv-6338, 2025 WL 3171639, at *1-2 (E.D.
Case 2:26-cv-00069-AB Document 5 Filed 01/09/26 Page 2 of 8

3
the application of Section 1225(b)(2)(A) to noncitizens residing in the
United States is unlawful. 	I agree with the reasoning of my colleagues
and these other district courts.3 Mr. Khodjaev’s Petition is GRANTED.
Pa. Nov. 13, 2025); (Kenney, J.); Centeno Ibarra v. Warden of the Federal
Detention Center, et al., No. 25-cv-6312 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 25, 2025) (Rufe, J.); Buele
Morocho v. Jamison, et al., No. 25-cv-5930 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 26, 2025) (Gallagher,
J.); Diallo v. O’Neill, et al, No 25-cv- 6358 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 26, 2025) (Savage, J.);
Espinal Rosa v. O’Neill, et al., No. 25-cv-6376 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 25, 2025)
(Weilheimer, J.);Wu v. Jamison, et al., No. 25-cv-6469 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 1, 2025)
(Gallagher, J.); Flores Obando v. Bondi, No. 25-cv-6474 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 1, 2025)
(Brody, J.); Valdivia Martinez v. FDC, No. 25-cv-6568 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 1, 2025)
(Savage, J.); Soumare v. Jamison, No. 25-cv-6490 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 2, 2025) (Henry,
J.); Yilmaz v. Warden, FDC, No. 25-cv-6572 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 2, 2025) (Rufe, J.);
Nogueira-Mendes v. McShane, No. 25-cv-5810 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 3, 2025) (Slomsky,
J.); Juarez Velazquez v. O’Neill, et al., No. 25-cv-6191 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 3, 2025)
(Henry, J.); Perez-Suspes v. Rose, et al., No. 25-cv-6608 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 5, 2025)
(Brody, J.); Delgado Villegas v. Bondi, et al., No. 25-cv-6143 (E.D. Pa. Dec 4,
2025) (Diamond, J.); Hidalgo et al. v. O’Neill, et al., No. 25-cv-6775 (E.D. Pa.
Dec. 5, 2025) Diamond, J.); Conde v. Jamison, et al. No. 25-cv-6551 (E.D. Pa.
Dec. 5, 2025) (Brody, J.); Rodrigues Pereira v. O’Neill, et al., No. 25-cv-6543
(E.D. Pa. Dec. 8, 2025) (Marston, J.); Bhatia v. O’Neill, et al., No. 25-cv-6809
(Rufe, J.); Anirudh v. McShane, et al., No. 25-cv-6458 (Bartle, J.); Acosta-Cibrian,
No. 25-cv-6650 (Gallagher, J.); Picon v. O’Neill, et al., No. 25-6731 (Perez, J.).
There have been many additional adverse decisions since December 15, 2025 and
there are approximately 25 pending habeas petitions confronting the same legal
issue in this District.
3 Because the Court finds that Mr. Khodjaev’s detention without a bond hearing
violates the INA, the Court does not address Mr. Khodjaev’s argument that his
detention also violates the Due Process Clause. Id. at 14-15.
Case 2:26-cv-00069-AB Document 5 Filed 01/09/26 Page 3 of 8

4
I. 	B ACKGROUND
Mr. Khodjaev is a citizen of Uzbekistan. Petition, ECF No. 1, ¶ 17.
Upon his entry to the United States, Mr. Khodjaev was apprehended by
Customs and Border Patrol and placed in removal proceedings. 	Id. ¶ 3.
Subsequently, Mr. Khodjaev was released on his own recognizance and
timely filed an application for asylum with the Department of Homeland
Security. 	Id.
On December 30, 2025, Respondents took Mr. Khodjaev into
custody while he attended his ICE check-in. 	Id. ¶ 4. He is now detained
at the Philadelphia Federal Detention Center. 	Id. ¶ 1.
On January 7, 2026, Mr. Khodjaev filed the instant Petition, seeking
his release. 	Id. at 23. Respondents oppose habeas relief. Respondents’
Opposition Brief, ECF No. 3.
II. 	DISCUSSION
A federal district court is authorized to grant a writ of habeas corpus
under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 where the petitioner is “in custody under or by
color of the authority of the United States … in violation of the
Case 2:26-cv-00069-AB Document 5 Filed 01/09/26 Page 4 of 8

5
Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. §§
2241(c)(1), (3). 	The burden is on the petitioner to show that he is in
custody in violation of the Constitution or federal law. 	28 U.S.C. §
2241(c)(3); Goins v. Brierley, 464 F.2d 947, 949 (3d Cir. 1972).
Respondents argue that the Court lacks jurisdiction to hear Mr.
Khodjaev’s claims per 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g), 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(9) and 8
U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii). 	As my colleagues have explained, none of
these statutes are applicable to the instant Petition. 	Demirel, 2025 WL
3218243, at *2-3; Cantu-Cortes, 2025 WL 3171639, at *1; Kashranov,
2025 WL 3188399, at *3-4. 	There is no jurisdictional bar to reviewing
Mr. Khodjaev’s Petition.
Respondents 	also 	assert 	that 	this 	Court 	should 	dismiss 	Mr.
Khodjaev’s claims because of his failure to exhaust administrative
remedies. 	Again, I agree with my colleagues that exhaustion is not
required because the issue presented involves only statutory construction,
and exhaustion would be futile in light of the Board of Immigration
Appeals’ recent decision in Matter of Yajure Hurtado, 29 I. & N. Dec.
Case 2:26-cv-00069-AB Document 5 Filed 01/09/26 Page 5 of 8

6
216 (B.I.A. 2025). 	Demirel, 2025 WL 3218243, at *3-4; Cantu-Cortes,
2025 WL 3171639, at *1; Kashranov, 2025 WL 3188399, at *4.
As for the merits of Mr. Khodjaev’s Petition, the principal issue is
whether his mandatory detention pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) is
unlawful.4 I concur with my colleagues that it is. Both the plain meaning
of the text of Section 1225(b)(2)(A) and the statutory framework of the
INA 	support 	the 	conclusion 	that 	the 	provision 	does 	not 	apply 	to
noncitizens residing within the United States. 	Demirel, 2025 WL
3218243, at *4-5; Cantu-Cortes, 2025 WL 3171639, at *1-2; Kashranov,
2025 WL 3188399, at *5-7. Respondents can detain Mr. Khodjaev, if at
all, under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a).5 Demirel, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 226877,
at *5; Cantu-Cortes, 2025 WL 3171639, at *1; Kashranov, 2025 WL
4 Section 1225(b)(2)(A) provides: “in the case of an alien who is an applicant for
admission, if the examining immigration officer determines that an alien seeking
admission is not clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted, the alien shall
be detained for a [removal] proceeding …” 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A).
5 Section 1226(a) provides: “On a warrant issued by the Attorney General, an alien
may be arrested and detained pending a decision on whether the alien is to be
removed from the United States.” The Attorney General “may release”
noncitizens on “bond” or “conditional parole,” except if they have committed any
criminal offenses listed in section 1226(c). 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a).
Case 2:26-cv-00069-AB Document 5 Filed 01/09/26 Page 6 of 8

7
3188399, at *5. 	Noncitizens detained pursuant to Section 1226(a) are
entitled to apply for release on bond or conditional parole. 	See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1236.1(c)(8), (d); 	Johnson v. Guzman Chavez, 594 U.S. 523, 527
(2021). 	Therefore, Mr. Khodjaev’s detention without opportunity for a
bond hearing violates the INA.
III. 	REMEDY
As Judge Wolson did, I will order the release of Mr. Khodjaev
because he was unlawfully detained without a bond hearing as required
by Section 1226(a). 	Kashranov, 2025 WL 3188399, at *8 (quoting
Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723, 779 (2008) (noting that a habeas court
has “the power to order the conditional release of an individual unlawfully
detained—though release need not be the exclusive remedy and is not the
appropriate one in every case in which the writ is granted.”)) I will also
permanently enjoin the Government from re-detaining Mr. Khodjaev
under Section 1225(b)(2)(A) and temporarily enjoin the Government
from re-arresting him under Section 1226(a) for seven days following his
release to ensure the habeas remedy is effective. If Mr. Khodjaev is later
Case 2:26-cv-00069-AB Document 5 Filed 01/09/26 Page 7 of 8

8
detained under Section 1226(a), the Government must provide Mr.
Khodjaev with notice and an opportunity to be heard at a bond hearing
before an Immigration Judge, who will assess whether he poses a flight
risk or a danger to the community.
IV. 	C ONCLUSION
I will grant Mr. Khodjaev’s Petition for the same reasons as my
colleagues on this Court. Mr. Khodjaev’s mandatory detention without a
bond hearing pursuant to Section 1225(b)(2) is unlawful. An appropriate
order accompanying this opinion follows.
s/ANITA B. BRODY, J.
ANITA B. BRODY, J
January 9, 2026
Case 2:26-cv-00069-AB Document 5 Filed 01/09/26 Page 8 of 8