Asemani v. Director, Office of Detention & Removal - Immigration Habeas Corpus

4th Circuit Daily Opinions

Filed March 24th, 2026

Detected March 25th, 2026

Summary

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated and remanded the district court's dismissal of Billy G. Asemani's habeas corpus petition. The court found that Asemani, facing a final order of removal and an immigration detainer, was considered 'in custody' for the purposes of a § 2241 petition, reversing the lower court's finding of lack of jurisdiction.

View original document View source feed page

What changed

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated and remanded a district court's decision that dismissed Billy G. Asemani's petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The district court had found it lacked jurisdiction because Asemani was in state custody, not federal custody, despite an immigration detainer. The appellate court reversed this, holding that Asemani, who is under a final order of removal, is considered 'in custody' for the purposes of § 2241, even if serving a state sentence.

This ruling means Asemani's case will proceed on the merits in the district court. Compliance officers should note that individuals facing final orders of removal may be considered 'in custody' for habeas corpus purposes, even when held by state authorities. The case was remanded for further proceedings, indicating that the legal challenge to the immigration detainer will now be addressed by the lower court.

What to do next

Review case law regarding 'in custody' status for habeas corpus petitions in immigration cases.

Source document (simplified)

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-6012

BILLY G. ASEMANI, Petitioner - Appellant,

DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF DETENTION & REMOVAL, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, IMMIGRATION & CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Deborah Lynn Boardman, District Judge. (1:22-cv-02620-DLB) Submitted: September 29, 2025 Decided: March 24, 2026 Before GREGORY and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Billy G. Asemani, Appellant Pro Se. Jessica Frances Woods Dillon, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Billy G. Asemani, a native and citizen of Iran, is currently incarcerated in state custody and is under an immigration detainer and a final order of removal. The final order of removal was entered in 2004. Asemani filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the district court, challenging the detainer order lodged against him by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The Government filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), and for failure to state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). The district court dismissed the § 2241 petition without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. The district court found it lacked jurisdiction to provide habeas relief because Asemani was not “in custody,” a requirement for seeking relief under § 2241. The court found Asemani did not satisfy the custody requirement because he was not in the custody of the authority from which he sought relief—Immigration and Customs Enforcement— but rather, was in the custody of the state. We review the district court’s denial of a § 2241 petition de novo. Fontanez v.

O’Brien, 807 F.3d 84, 86 (4th Cir. 2015). Under § 2241, a prisoner may seek habeas relief

if he is “in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). Noncitizens challenging their detention and deportation may also petition for a writ of habeas corpus under § 2241. See INS v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289, 298 (2001) (reviewing a noncitizen’s habeas challenge). Courts broadly construe the term “in custody.” See Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488, 493 (1989). Here, the district court found that Asemani was not in federal custody for 2

purposes of § 2241 because he was serving a state sentence; the court further concluded that the fact that an immigration detainer had been lodged against Asemani did not render him in federal custody. While the court was correct that Asemani’s immigration detainer did not mean that he was in custody for purposes of § 2241, see, e.g., Zolicoffer v. U.S.

Dep’t of Just., 315 F.3d 538, 541 (5th Cir. 2003), “a final deportation order subjects an

alien to a restraint on liberty sufficient to place the alien ‘in custody,’” Rosales v. Bureau

of Immigr. & Customs Enf’t, 426 F.3d 733, 735 (5th Cir. 2005) (collecting cases).

Here, as we have already held, Asemani was under a final order of removal and was thus “in custody” for purposes of § 2241. In re Asemani, No. 25-1513, 2025 WL 1823953, at *1 (4th Cir. July 2, 2025) (“While Asemani would be in custody for purposes of § 2241, he cannot obtain a review of his 2004 order of removal by filing a § 2241 petition in this court.”); cf. Korac v. Warden Fairton FCI, 814 F. App’x 722, 723 (3d Cir. 2020) (holding a noncitizen could challenge a detainer so long as he was also subject to a final deportation order). We therefore deny Asemani’s pending motions, and vacate the district court’s order, and remand for further proceedings. We dispense with oral argument because the facts * and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. VACATED AND REMANDED