Wahid v. Gates, 876 F. Supp. 2d 15

Petitioner Zia-ur-Rahman challenges his detention at Bagram Air Base, seeking a writ of habeas corpus.
Case law foregrounds Boumediene's Suspension Clause analysis after Al Maqaleh and Rasul.
Collateral posture: Al Maqaleh (D.C. Cir.) advised against jurisdiction; this case follows that precedent.
Petitioner is Afghan; detention occurred abroad in Afghanistan, under U.S. presence and Afghan government consent.
Court applies Boumediene three-factor test (adequacy of process, site nature, practical obstacles) to assess jurisdiction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does Suspension Clause extend habeas review to Bagram detainees?	Rahman seeks jurisdiction under Boumediene.	Gates argues lack of jurisdiction per Al Maqaleh.	No jurisdiction; Boumediene factors not satisfied.
Is the petitioner's case distinguished sufficiently from Al Maqaleh?	Facts differ materially from Al Maqaleh.	Facts substantially similar; no change in analysis.	Not sufficiently distinguished; same outcome.
Should the court grant jurisdictional discovery?	Discovery could reveal jurisdictional merits.	Discovery unlikely to alter jurisdiction.	Denied discovery.
Do the Boumediene factors collectively weigh in favor of extending habeas review?	Adequacy of process supports extension.	Nature of site and practical obstacles weigh against.	Factors favor Respondents; no jurisdiction.

Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723 (U.S. 2008) (Suspension Clause applies extraterritorially in certain conditions)
Al Maqaleh v. Gates, 605 F.3d 84 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (multifactor Boumediene framework; no jurisdiction at Bagram)
Rasul v. Bush, 542 U.S. 466 (U.S. 2004) (established jurisdiction for Guantanamo habeas challenges)
Hamdan v. Rumsold, 548 U.S. 557 (U.S. 2006) (Military Commissions Act did not divest pending cases)
Eisentrager v. Taft, 339 U.S. 763 (U.S. 1950) (pre-Boumediene rule denying habeas beyond territorial U.S.)