6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 7 AT SEATTLE
8 FAHEEM TARIQ,
9 Petitioner, Case No. C25-2387-LK-SKV
10 v. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 11 BRUCE SCOTT,
12 Respondent.
14 I. INTRODUCTION 15 Petitioner Faheem Tariq is currently detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs 16 Enforcement (“ICE”) at the Northwest ICE Processing Center (“NWIPC”) in Tacoma, 17 Washington. He has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 seeking a 18 bond hearing. Dkt. 1. Petitioner, who is proceeding pro se, asserts that his continued detention 19 without a bond hearing is unreasonable and he asks that the Court order an individualized bond 20 hearing at which the government bears the burden of proving Petitioner is either a flight risk or a 21 danger to the community by clear and convincing evidence. See id. The government has filed a 22 return to the petition (Dkt. 5), together with the supporting declarations of ICE Deportation 23 Officer Cheng Liu (Dkt. 6), and government counsel James C. Strong (Dkt. 7). Petitioner has 1 filed a traverse addressing the arguments set forth in the government’s return (Dkt. 8), and this 2 matter is now ripe for review. 3 The Court, having considered the parties’ submissions and the governing law, concludes
4 that Petitioner’s federal habeas petition should be denied, and this action should be dismissed 5 with prejudice. 6 II. BACKGROUND 7 Petitioner is a native and citizen of Pakistan who was admitted into the United States on a 8 visitor visa on or about August 9, 2003. Liu Decl., ¶¶ 3, 4. Petitioner adjusted to lawful 9 permanent resident status on or about June 23, 2006. Id., ¶ 5. 10 On May 4, 2020, Petitioner was convicted of manufacturing/distributing a controlled 11 dangerous substance or intent to manufacture/distribute a controlled dangerous substance in the 12 Superior Court of New Jersey, Atlantic County, and he was sentenced to five years’ probation. 13 See Liu Decl., ¶ 6; Strong Decl., Ex. A. Petitioner thereafter took a trip abroad and, on February
14 6, 2023, he arrived back at Newark International Airport and applied for admission to the United 15 States as a returning lawful permanent resident. Liu Decl., ¶ 7; Strong Decl., Ex. B at 4. U.S. 16 Customs and Boarder Protection at Newark determined Petitioner was inadmissible based on his 17 controlled substance conviction, and issued Petitioner a Notice to Appear charging him with 18 being removable pursuant to §§ 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(I) and 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(II) of the Immigration and 19 Nationality Act (“INA”), 8 U.S.C. §§ 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I) and 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II). Liu Decl., 20 ¶ 8; Strong Decl., Ex. B. 21 On October 16, 2024, Petitioner appeared for an individual merits hearing before an 22 immigration judge (“IJ”). Liu Decl., ¶ 14; Strong Decl., Ex. C. The IJ found Petitioner 23 removable, denied him cancellation of removal, and ordered he be removed to Pakistan. Id. 1 Petitioner appealed the IJ’s decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), and the BIA 2 dismissed the appeal on April 25, 2025. Liu Decl., ¶¶ 15, 16; Strong Decl., Ex. D. Petitioner 3 thereafter filed a petition for review with the United States Court of Appeals for the Third
4 Circuit. Tariq v. Attorney General United States of America, No. 25-2068 (filed June 3, 2025). 5 Petitioner filed a motion to stay his removal with the Third Circuit on June 4, 2025, and 6 the Clerk of Court issued a temporary stay of removal on the same date. See Tariq, No. 25-2068, 7 Dkts. 8, 9. On September 16, 2025, the Third Circuit denied Petitioner’s motion to stay, vacated 8 the temporary stay issued by the Clerk, and referred Respondent’s motion for summary 9 disposition to a merits panel. Id., Dkt. 13. On December 9, 2025, Petitioner filed a renewed 10 motion for stay of removal with the Third Circuit. See Liu Decl., ¶ 23. That motion was denied 11 on January 9, 2026, on the same grounds as his first such motion, i.e., because Petitioner had not 12 shown a likelihood of success on the merits of his petition for review. See Tariq, No. 25-2068, 13 Dkts. 13, 19, 20. Petitioner’s petition for review remains pending before the Third Circuit at this
14 time. 15 After the temporary stay was vacated by the Third Circuit on September 16, 2025, the 16 ICE Office of Enforcement and Removal Operations began taking steps to obtain travel 17 documents to effectuate Petitioner’s removal to Pakistan. Liu Decl., ¶¶ 18-22. Petitioner’s 18 travel document package was submitted to the Pakistani consulate on December 6, 2025. Id., 19 ¶ 22. 20 Petitioner filed his federal habeas petition on November 24, 2025. See Dkt. 1. Petitioner 21 asserted therein that he was subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c), that his 22 detention had become prolonged, and that he had not received a prior bond hearing. See Dkt. 1. 23 Petitioner noted that this Court applies the multi-factor analysis set forth in Martinez v. Clark, 1 2019 WL 5968089, at *6-7 (W.D. Wash. May 23, 2019), to determine whether § 1226(c) 2 detention has become unreasonable, and he argued that a majority of the Martinez factors 3 weighed in his favor, and he should therefore be afforded an individualized bond hearing. Dkt. 1
4 at 4-10. The government argues in response that Petitioner is detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1231, 5 that his detention has not become prolonged under that statutory provision, and that he is 6 therefore not entitled to a bond hearing. Dkt. 5 at 4-6. 7 III. DISCUSSION 8 The INA expressly permits the detention of noncitizens present in the United States 9 during immigration proceedings, as well as the detention of noncitizens ordered removed during 10 such proceedings. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1225(b), 1226(a), 1226(c), 1231(a). Section 1226(c) governs 11 the detention of noncitizens who fall into one of the enumerated categories involving criminal 12 offenses and provides that detention is mandatory for such individuals until removal proceedings 13 have concluded. 8 U.S.C. § 1226; Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281, 303 (2018). Section
14 1231(a), in contrast, governs the detention and release of noncitizens who have been ordered 15 removed. Though Petitioner’s petition for review remains pending in the Third Circuit, that 16 court has declined to stay Petitioner’s removal and, thus, his detention is currently governed by 17 § 1231(a), not § 1226(c). See 8 U.S.C § 1231(a)(1)(B)(ii). 18 Section 1231(a) provides that the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) is required 19 to detain a noncitizen during a 90-day “removal period.” 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(2). After the 20 removal period expires, DHS has the discretionary authority to continue to detain certain 21 noncitizens, or to release them on supervision. 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 7 AT SEATTLE
8 FAHEEM TARIQ,
9 Petitioner, Case No. C25-2387-LK-SKV
10 v. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 11 BRUCE SCOTT,
12 Respondent.
14 I. INTRODUCTION 15 Petitioner Faheem Tariq is currently detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs 16 Enforcement (“ICE”) at the Northwest ICE Processing Center (“NWIPC”) in Tacoma, 17 Washington. He has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 seeking a 18 bond hearing. Dkt. 1. Petitioner, who is proceeding pro se, asserts that his continued detention 19 without a bond hearing is unreasonable and he asks that the Court order an individualized bond 20 hearing at which the government bears the burden of proving Petitioner is either a flight risk or a 21 danger to the community by clear and convincing evidence. See id. The government has filed a 22 return to the petition (Dkt. 5), together with the supporting declarations of ICE Deportation 23 Officer Cheng Liu (Dkt. 6), and government counsel James C. Strong (Dkt. 7). Petitioner has 1 filed a traverse addressing the arguments set forth in the government’s return (Dkt. 8), and this 2 matter is now ripe for review. 3 The Court, having considered the parties’ submissions and the governing law, concludes
4 that Petitioner’s federal habeas petition should be denied, and this action should be dismissed 5 with prejudice. 6 II. BACKGROUND 7 Petitioner is a native and citizen of Pakistan who was admitted into the United States on a 8 visitor visa on or about August 9, 2003. Liu Decl., ¶¶ 3, 4. Petitioner adjusted to lawful 9 permanent resident status on or about June 23, 2006. Id., ¶ 5. 10 On May 4, 2020, Petitioner was convicted of manufacturing/distributing a controlled 11 dangerous substance or intent to manufacture/distribute a controlled dangerous substance in the 12 Superior Court of New Jersey, Atlantic County, and he was sentenced to five years’ probation. 13 See Liu Decl., ¶ 6; Strong Decl., Ex. A. Petitioner thereafter took a trip abroad and, on February
14 6, 2023, he arrived back at Newark International Airport and applied for admission to the United 15 States as a returning lawful permanent resident. Liu Decl., ¶ 7; Strong Decl., Ex. B at 4. U.S. 16 Customs and Boarder Protection at Newark determined Petitioner was inadmissible based on his 17 controlled substance conviction, and issued Petitioner a Notice to Appear charging him with 18 being removable pursuant to §§ 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(I) and 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(II) of the Immigration and 19 Nationality Act (“INA”), 8 U.S.C. §§ 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I) and 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II). Liu Decl., 20 ¶ 8; Strong Decl., Ex. B. 21 On October 16, 2024, Petitioner appeared for an individual merits hearing before an 22 immigration judge (“IJ”). Liu Decl., ¶ 14; Strong Decl., Ex. C. The IJ found Petitioner 23 removable, denied him cancellation of removal, and ordered he be removed to Pakistan. Id. 1 Petitioner appealed the IJ’s decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), and the BIA 2 dismissed the appeal on April 25, 2025. Liu Decl., ¶¶ 15, 16; Strong Decl., Ex. D. Petitioner 3 thereafter filed a petition for review with the United States Court of Appeals for the Third
4 Circuit. Tariq v. Attorney General United States of America, No. 25-2068 (filed June 3, 2025). 5 Petitioner filed a motion to stay his removal with the Third Circuit on June 4, 2025, and 6 the Clerk of Court issued a temporary stay of removal on the same date. See Tariq, No. 25-2068, 7 Dkts. 8, 9. On September 16, 2025, the Third Circuit denied Petitioner’s motion to stay, vacated 8 the temporary stay issued by the Clerk, and referred Respondent’s motion for summary 9 disposition to a merits panel. Id., Dkt. 13. On December 9, 2025, Petitioner filed a renewed 10 motion for stay of removal with the Third Circuit. See Liu Decl., ¶ 23. That motion was denied 11 on January 9, 2026, on the same grounds as his first such motion, i.e., because Petitioner had not 12 shown a likelihood of success on the merits of his petition for review. See Tariq, No. 25-2068, 13 Dkts. 13, 19, 20. Petitioner’s petition for review remains pending before the Third Circuit at this
14 time. 15 After the temporary stay was vacated by the Third Circuit on September 16, 2025, the 16 ICE Office of Enforcement and Removal Operations began taking steps to obtain travel 17 documents to effectuate Petitioner’s removal to Pakistan. Liu Decl., ¶¶ 18-22. Petitioner’s 18 travel document package was submitted to the Pakistani consulate on December 6, 2025. Id., 19 ¶ 22. 20 Petitioner filed his federal habeas petition on November 24, 2025. See Dkt. 1. Petitioner 21 asserted therein that he was subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c), that his 22 detention had become prolonged, and that he had not received a prior bond hearing. See Dkt. 1. 23 Petitioner noted that this Court applies the multi-factor analysis set forth in Martinez v. Clark, 1 2019 WL 5968089, at *6-7 (W.D. Wash. May 23, 2019), to determine whether § 1226(c) 2 detention has become unreasonable, and he argued that a majority of the Martinez factors 3 weighed in his favor, and he should therefore be afforded an individualized bond hearing. Dkt. 1
4 at 4-10. The government argues in response that Petitioner is detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1231, 5 that his detention has not become prolonged under that statutory provision, and that he is 6 therefore not entitled to a bond hearing. Dkt. 5 at 4-6. 7 III. DISCUSSION 8 The INA expressly permits the detention of noncitizens present in the United States 9 during immigration proceedings, as well as the detention of noncitizens ordered removed during 10 such proceedings. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1225(b), 1226(a), 1226(c), 1231(a). Section 1226(c) governs 11 the detention of noncitizens who fall into one of the enumerated categories involving criminal 12 offenses and provides that detention is mandatory for such individuals until removal proceedings 13 have concluded. 8 U.S.C. § 1226; Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281, 303 (2018). Section
14 1231(a), in contrast, governs the detention and release of noncitizens who have been ordered 15 removed. Though Petitioner’s petition for review remains pending in the Third Circuit, that 16 court has declined to stay Petitioner’s removal and, thus, his detention is currently governed by 17 § 1231(a), not § 1226(c). See 8 U.S.C § 1231(a)(1)(B)(ii). 18 Section 1231(a) provides that the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) is required 19 to detain a noncitizen during a 90-day “removal period.” 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(2). After the 20 removal period expires, DHS has the discretionary authority to continue to detain certain 21 noncitizens, or to release them on supervision. 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6). Although § 1231(a)(6) 22 authorizes ICE to detain noncitizens beyond the initial 90-day window, it cannot do so 23 indefinitely. See Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 682 (2001). 1 In Zadvydas, the Supreme Court held that § 1231(a)(6) implicitly limits a noncitizen’s 2 detention to a period reasonably necessary to bring about that individual’s removal from the 3 United States. Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 701. The Supreme Court determined that it is
4 “presumptively reasonable” for DHS to detain a noncitizen for six months following entry of a 5 final removal order while it works to remove the individual from the United States. Id. 6 Petitioner’s removal period began on September 16, 2025, when the Third Circuit 7 vacated the temporary stay of removal issued by the Clerk and denied Petitioner’s motion to stay 8 removal, 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1)(B)(ii), and the period ended 90-days later on December 15, 2025. 9 The presumptively reasonable six-month period recognized in Zadvydas, will not expire until at 10 least March 16, 2026. Petitioner’s ongoing detention under § 1231(a) is therefore lawful and, 11 thus, he is not entitled to the bond hearing he seeks by way of his federal habeas petition. 12 IV. CONCLUSION 13 For the foregoing reasons, this Court recommends Petitioner’s federal habeas petition
14 (Dkt. 1) be denied, and this action is dismissed with prejudice. A proposed Order accompanies 15 this Report and Recommendation. 16 Objections to this Report and Recommendation, if any, should be filed with the Clerk and 17 served upon all parties to this suit not later than fourteen (14) days from the date on which this 18 Report and Recommendation is signed. Failure to file objections within the specified time may 19 affect your right to appeal. Objections should be noted for consideration on the District Judge’s 20 motions calendar fourteen (14) days from the date they are filed. Responses to objections may 21 be filed by the day before the noting date. If no timely objections are filed, the matter will be 22 ready for consideration by the District Judge on February 25, 2026. 23 // 1 DATED this 4th day of February, 2026.
3 A S. KATE VAUGHAN 4 United States Magistrate Judge
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23