Billy G. Asemani, an Iranian national, was serving a state prison sentence while simultaneously subject to a final order of removal issued in 2004 and an immigration detainer lodged by the Department of Homeland Security. Asemani filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the District Court for the District of Maryland to challenge the detainer. The government moved to dismiss, arguing the district court lacked jurisdiction because Asemani was not 'in custody' of the federal government as required by the statute. The district court agreed, dismissing the petition without prejudice on the grounds that Asemani was in state custody, not federal custody, and that the detainer alone did not satisfy the custody requirement.
The Fourth Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo, focusing on the statutory requirement that a petitioner be 'in custody' to seek habeas relief. The court acknowledged that while an immigration detainer alone does not constitute custody for § 2241 purposes, a final deportation order does. Citing Rosales v. Bureau of Immigr. & Customs Enf't, the court explained that a final deportation order subjects an alien to a restraint on liberty sufficient to place the alien 'in custody.' The court noted that Asemani was under a final order of removal, which legally restrained his liberty regardless of his physical confinement by state authorities. The court distinguished the district court's error in limiting federal custody strictly to physical confinement by federal agents, emphasizing that the legal status imposed by the removal order satisfies the jurisdictional threshold.
The decision clarifies that noncitizens serving state sentences who are subject to final deportation orders retain the right to file habeas petitions challenging federal detention actions, such as detainers, under § 2241. The case is remanded to the district court to address the merits of Asemani's claims, though the appellate court explicitly noted it takes no position on the validity of the detainer itself. This ruling prevents federal courts from dismissing such petitions solely on the basis that the petitioner is physically held by state authorities.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download