Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
MUROD M. KOBILOV,
Petitioner,
v.
DAVID O’NEILL, et al.,
Respondents.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 26-0058
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Rufe, J. January 8, 2025
Petitioner Murod M. Kobilov is an immigrant from Uzbekistan who was recently
detained by the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) under the Immigration and
Nationality Act (“INA”) while his asylum application was pending. He has filed an emergency
petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging that detention. Kobilov
contends that his detention is based upon an unlawful interpretation of 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) and
denies him due process.1 The Court agrees that Kobilov cannot be subject to mandatory
detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) because he is not an “applicant for admission” but rather a
noncitizen who has long been present in the United States. The petition will be granted.
I. BACKGROUND
Kobilov is a citizen of Uzbekistan who came to the United States through the Southern
Border in 2023.2 He was initially detained by Customs and Border Patrol but was released
pursuant to an Order of Release on Recognizance.3 Following his release, he was placed in
removal proceedings and charged as “an alien present in the United States without being
1 Petition [Doc. No. 1].
2 Petition ¶¶ 2, 17 [Doc. No. 1].
3 Petition ¶ 3 [Doc. No. 1].
Case 2:26-cv-00058-CMR Document 6 Filed 01/08/26 Page 1 of 5

2
admitted or paroled.”4 After entering the country, Kobilov filed an Application for Asylum.5
Kobilov is authorized to work and has a social security number.6 Nothing in the record indicates
that he has had involvement with the criminal justice system in the United States, Uzbekistan, or
any other jurisdiction.
On December 31, 2025, with his asylum application still pending, Kobilov attended a
routine USCIS biometrics appointment that related to a pending application of his.7 At the
appointment, Kobilov was arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”).8 He did
not receive a bond hearing. Kobilov’s detention is the product of a new DHS policy, under which
“individuals present in the United States without admission or parole are now treated as
applicants for admission subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2) rather than
discretionary detention under § 1226(a).”9 The Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) adopted
this interpretation in Matter of Yajure Hurtado.10
On January 6, 2026, Kobilov filed the instant emergency petition for a writ of habeas
corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.11 The next day, this Court initiated a procedure consistent with
its management of other emergency habeas petitions. The Court ordered the government to show
cause why Kobilov’s petition should not be granted and scheduled a hearing on the matter.12
4 See Petition, Ex. 1 [Doc. No. 1-1].
5 Petition ¶ 3 [Doc. No. 1].
6 Petition ¶ 3 [Doc. No. 1].
7 Petition ¶ 4 [Doc. No. 1].
8 Petition ¶ 4 [Doc. No. 1].
9 Yilmaz v. Warden of the Fed. Det. Ctr. Phila., No. 25-6572, 2025 WL 3459484, at *1 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 2, 2025)
(quoting Ndiaye v. Jamison, No. 25-6007, 2025 WL 3229307, at *2 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 19, 2025)).
10 29 I. & N. Dec. 216 (B.I.A. 2025); see Petition ¶ 32 [Doc. No. 1].
11 Petition [Doc. No. 1].
12 1/7/26 Order [Doc. No. 4].
Case 2:26-cv-00058-CMR Document 6 Filed 01/08/26 Page 2 of 5

3
Thereafter, by stipulation of the parties, the Court cancelled the show cause hearing and resolved
to decide the case on the briefs, as the parties requested.13
II. LEGAL STANDARD
Federal district courts are authorized to grant a § 2241 motion where the petitioner is
detained “in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.”14 The
petitioner has the burden of showing that the detention violates the Constitution of the United
States or federal law.15
III. DISCUSSION
Kobilov’s petition prompts consideration of whether the mandatory detention provided
for in 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) extends to noncitizens who, despite not being admitted or paroled,
have resided in the United States for an extended period.
In recent months, courts have confronted this question repeatedly and exhaustively. They
have resoundingly rejected the government’s effort to stretch § 1225(b)(2) beyond what the
INA’s plain language allows.16 In this District, each of the dozens of decisions interpreting the
scope of § 1225(b)(2) in this context have held it does not apply to individuals similarly situated
13 1/8/26 Stipulation and Order [Doc. No. 5].
14 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3); Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510, 523 (2003) (“[T]he Fifth Amendment entitles [noncitizens]
to due process of law in deportation proceedings.” (citations and quotation marks omitted)).
15 See Goins v. Brierley, 464 F.2d 947, 949 (3d Cir. 1972).
16 See, e.g., Demirel v. Fed. Det. Ctr. Phila., No. 25-5488, 2025 WL 3218243 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 18, 2025) (noting that,
as of November 18, 2025, 282 of 288 district court decisions had found that the application of § 1225(b)(2) to
noncitizens residing in the United States is unlawful); Cantu-Cortes v. O'Neill, No. 25-6338, 2025 WL 3171639
(E.D. Pa. Nov. 13, 2025); Kashranov v. Jamison, No. 25-5555, 2025 WL 3188399 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 14, 2025); Ndiaye
v. Jamison, No. 25-6007, 2025 WL 3229307 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 19, 2025); Patel v. McShane, No. 25-5975, 2025 WL
3241212 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 20, 2025); Centeno Ibarra v. Warden of the Fed. Det. Ctr. Phila., No. 25-6312, 2025 WL
3294726 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 25, 2025); Flores Obando v. Bondi, No. 25-6474, 2025 WL 3452047 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 1,
2025); Yilmaz v. Warden of the Fed. Det. Ctr. Phila., No. 25-6572, 2025 WL 3459484 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 2, 2025);
Conde v. Jamison, No. 25-6551, 2025 WL 3499256 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 5, 2025); Bhatia v. O'Neill, No. 25-6809, 2025
WL 3530075 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 9, 2025); Anirudh v. McShane, No. 25-6458, 2025 WL 3527528 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 9,
2025); Picon v. O'Neill, No. 25-6731, 2025 WL 3634212 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 15, 2025). There have been a multitude of
additional decisions ruling against the government since December 15, 2025. Gov't Resp. at 1-2 n.1 [Doc. No. 3].
Case 2:26-cv-00058-CMR Document 6 Filed 01/08/26 Page 3 of 5

4
to Kobilov.17 While “[t]his Court considers each case on an ad hoc basis, and its rulings turn on
the facts of each case at issue,”18 the Court finds no basis in the briefing or in Kobilov’s
circumstances that causes it to diverge from those prior decisions.19
First, Kobilov’s petition is reviewable.20 The jurisdiction-stripping statutory provisions21
cited by the government do not apply because Kobilov “challenges his detention rather than the
initiation of removal proceedings, because [Kobilov] cannot obtain relief for his detention
following a final order regarding removal, and because [Kobilov’s] detention is not the
byproduct of a discretionary determination.”22 Nor does Kobilov’s failure to exhaust
administrative remedies preclude the Court’s review. This case involves exceptions to the
exhaustion requirement because the issue is purely one of statutory interpretation and because
the BIA’s decision in Hurtado would render the pursuit of further administrative remedies
futile.23
Second, the tools of statutory interpretation require a narrow reading of § 1225(b)(2). The
unambiguous plain meaning of an “applicant for admission” who is “seeking admission” is a
noncitizen at a port of entry seeking to cross into the United States, not someone who has already
17 See, e.g., Kanaut v. Rose, No. 25-6869, 2026 WL 36690 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 6, 2026); Francois v. Noem, No. 25-7334,
2026 WL 27565 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 5, 2026); Lara Cordon v. Jamison, No. 25-6937, 2025 WL 3756948 (E.D. Pa. Dec.
29, 2025); Kumar v. McShane, No. 25-6238, 2025 WL 3722005 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 23, 2025). See also supra note 16.
18 Diallo v. Bondi, No. 25-7421, 2026 WL 36534, at *2 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 6, 2026).
19 This Court has, itself, granted habeas relief as to all five of the ICE detention habeas petitions that it recently
adjudicated. Centeno Ibarra v. Warden of the Fed. Det. Ctr. Phila., No. 25-6312, 2025 WL 3294726 (E.D. Pa. Nov.
25, 2025); Yilmaz v. Warden of the Fed. Det. Ctr. Phila., No. 25-6572, 2025 WL 3459484 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 2, 2025);
Bhatia v. O'Neill, No. 25-6809, 2025 WL 3530075 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 9, 2025); Djalilov v. O'Neill, No. 25-6986, 2025
WL 3689147 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 19, 2025); Diallo v. Bondi, No. 25-7421, 2026 WL 36534 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 6, 2026).
20 Cf. supra note 16.
21 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g), 1252(b)(9), 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii).
22 See Yilmaz, 2025 WL 3459484, at *2.
23 See id.
Case 2:26-cv-00058-CMR Document 6 Filed 01/08/26 Page 4 of 5

5
resided in the United States.24 Instead, the detention of noncitizens like Kobilov who have long
been present in the United States “is governed by § 1226(a), which entitles them to a bond
hearing before continued detention is permitted.”25 Section 1226(a)’s predominance is further
evident from the titles of § 1225 and § 1226, as well as from agency practice, the rule against
superfluity, recent amendments to § 1226, and the canon of constitutional avoidance.26
Kobilov may be detained under the INA only if, under § 1226(a) and the applicable
regulations, he receives a bond hearing and the facts bear out that he presents a risk of flight or of
endangering the community.27 Here, there is no record evidence from which the Court could
infer that Kobilov is likely to flee or threaten the safety of others. Accordingly, a bond hearing is
unnecessary, and the Court will order Kobilov’s immediate release.28
IV. CONCLUSION
As in this Court’s previous cases, the DHS lacked legal authority to mandatorily detain
Petitioner Murod M. Kobilov without a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). The Court
will grant his Petition. An order will follow.
24 See id. at *3; Centeno Ibarra, 2025 WL 3294726, at *5.
25 Yilmaz at *3; see also Centeno Ibarra at *4-7; 8 C.F.R. § 1236.1(c)(8), (d)(1) (stating that bond is available to
noncitizens detained under § 1226(a) and that “the immigration judge is authorized to exercise the authority . . . to
detain the [noncitizen] in custody, release the [noncitizen], and determine the amount of bond”).
26 See Yilmaz at *3; Centeno Ibarra at *5-7.
27 See Yilmaz at *3; Centeno Ibarra at *4, *8 n.69; 8 C.F.R. § 1236.1(c)(8), (d)(1).
28 See Karshranov, 2025 WL 3188399, at *8 (“[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.’” (quoting Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723, 779 (2008)).
Case 2:26-cv-00058-CMR Document 6 Filed 01/08/26 Page 5 of 5