Sanchez v. Warden Diamondback Correctional Facility

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
GRACIELA LEYVA SANCHEZ, 	)
)
Petitioner, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Case No. CIV-26-318-SLP
)
WARDEN, Diamondback Correctional
Facility, et al.,
)
)
)
Respondents. 	)
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Petitioner Graciela Leyva Sanchez, a noncitizen1 and Cuban national proceeding
pro se, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”), Doc. 1, challenging under
28 U.S.C. § 2241 her detention by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”).
United States District Judge Scott L. Palk referred this matter to the undersigned Magistrate
Judge in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)-(C). Doc. 3. The undersigned set an
expedited briefing schedule, Doc. 8, and the Petition is at issue. 	On February 20, 2026,
Petitioner also filed a Motion for Expedited Consideration. 	Doc. 6. 	For the reasons set
forth below, the undersigned recommends that the Court grant the Petition, Doc. 1, in part
and order Respondents to provide Petitioner a bond hearing pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a)
within five business days or otherwise to release her if there is no hearing within that time.
1 Unless quoting, this Report and Recommendation “uses the term ‘noncitizen’ as
equivalent to the statutory term ‘alien.’” Nasrallah v. Barr, 590 U.S. 573, 578 n.2 (2020)
(citing 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(3)).
Case 5:26-cv-00318-SLP Document 11 Filed 03/26/26 Page 1 of 11

2
The 	undersigned 	further 	recommends 	that 	the 	Court 	deny 	Petitioner’s 	Motion 	for
Expedited Consideration as moot.
I. 	Background
Petitioner, a citizen of Cuba, entered the United States on May 12, 2022, without
inspection or admission near San Luis, Arizona, and was taken into immigration custody.
Pet. at 7; Resp. at 8. 	On May 14, 2022, ICE placed Petitioner into removal proceedings
before the Immigration Court pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1229a through the issuance of a Notice
to 	Appear 	(“NTA”) 	and 	charged 	her 	with 	being 	inadmissible 	under 	8 	U.S.C.
§ 1182(a)(6)(A)(i) as someone who entered the United States without inspection. Doc. 1-
4 at 1 (May 2022 NTA). On May 14, 2022, Petitioner was released on an Order of Release
on Recognizance pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226. Pet. at 7; Doc. 5 at 1; Doc. 1-3 (Order of
Release on Recognizance). 	On May 3, 2023, Petitioner filed an application for asylum,
which remains pending. Resp. at 8-9; Doc. 10-1 (Asylum Application). Petitioner alleges
for four years she complied with the conditions of her release on recognizance. Pet. at 7;
Doc. 5 at 1. She also alleges she suffers from a thyroid condition. Id. at 8; see also Doc.
1-5 (Medical Records).
On January 10, 2026, ICE re-detained Petitioner during a scheduled ICE check-in.
Pet. at 7; Doc. 5 at 1. ICE re-detained her pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A). Resp. at
1. 	On February 12, 2026, an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denied Petitioner a bond hearing
for lack of jurisdiction because IJs are subject to the binding precedent of Matter of Yajure
Hurtado, 29 I & N Dec. 216 (BIA 2025), which holds that those who entered the country
without admission or parole are ineligible for a bond hearing. Pet. at 7; Doc. 5 at 1; Doc.
Case 5:26-cv-00318-SLP Document 11 Filed 03/26/26 Page 2 of 11

3
1-2 (IJ’s Bond Denial). 	Respondents allege that on February 23, 2026, Petitioner filed
another Bond Redetermination Request. 	Resp. at 9. 	Neither party has alleged a bond
hearing has been scheduled.
When Petitioner filed her Petition, she was detained at Diamondback Correctional
Facility in Watonga, Oklahoma. 	Id. at 1. 	She remains detained there. 	See ICE Online
Detainee Locator System, at https://locator.ice.gov/odls/#/results (last visited Mar. 26,
2026).
II. 	Petitioner’s Claims
Petitioner asserts four counts in her Petition.
• 	Count 	I: 	Violation 	of 	the 	Immigration 	and 	Nationality 	Act
(“INA”). 	Petitioner alleges her continued detention is unlawful and
violates the INA because she has been denied any individualized
review and had previously been released pursuant to § 1226 and
should not now be subject to mandatory detention. Pet. at 7.
• 	Count II: Violation of Due Process. Petitioner alleges her continued
detention without an individualized bond hearing violates her right to
due process. Id.
• 	Count III: Serious Medical Condition Worsened by Detention.
Petitioner 	alleges 	that 	since 	she 	has 	been 	detained 	her 	thyroid
condition has worsened and her access to consistent, specialized
medical care has been limited. Id. at 7-8.
• 	Count IV: Denial of Meaningful Access to Counsel. 	Petitioner
alleges that since her transfer to Diamondback Correctional Facility,
she has been unable 	to communicate with her attorney, which
interferes with the preparation of her immigration case. Id. at 8.
She asks the Court to “order [her] immediate release from custody” or “in the alternative,
order that [she] receive a prompt and individualized bond hearing before an immigration
judge.” Id. (citation modified).
Case 5:26-cv-00318-SLP Document 11 Filed 03/26/26 Page 3 of 11

4
III. 	Standard of Review
To obtain habeas corpus relief, Petitioner must show that she is “in custody in
violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 	28 U.S.C.
§ 2241(c)(3). “Challenges to immigration detention are properly brought directly through
habeas.” Soberanes v. Comfort, 388 F.3d 1305, 1310 (10th Cir. 2004) (citing Zadvydas v.
Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 687-88 (2001)).
IV. 	Analysis
A. 	The Court has jurisdiction to consider the Petition.
Respondents first argue this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider Petitioner’s claims,
based on 8 U.S.C. §§ 1252(g) and 1252(b)(9). 	Resp. at 10-13. 	However, this Court has
ruled the INA does not jurisdictionally bar a habeas claim like Petitioner’s because “such
a claim does not arise from and is not directly connected to the commencement of removal
proceedings, the adjudication of removability, or the execution of any removal order.”
Gonzalez Cortes v. Holt, No. CIV-25-1176-SLP, 2026 WL 147435, at *3 (W.D. Okla. Jan.
20, 2026) (citation modified). The undersigned agrees with this Court’s previous finding
that jurisdiction exists to consider Petitioner’s habeas challenges to detention.
B. 	Section 1226(a) applies to Petitioner’s detention.
The two sections of the INA at issue are 8 U.S.C. §§ 1225 and 1226. 	Section
1225(a)(1) describes an “applicant for admission” as “an alien present in the United States
who has not been admitted or who arrives in the United States.” Id. § 1225(a)(1) (citation
modified). 	Under § 1225(b)(2)(A), “in the case of an alien who is an applicant for
admission, if the examining immigration officer determines that an alien seeking admission
Case 5:26-cv-00318-SLP Document 11 Filed 03/26/26 Page 4 of 11

5
is not clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted, the alien shall be detained for a
proceeding under section 1229a.” 	If Petitioner is an “applicant for admission” and
“seeking admission” under § 1225(b)(2)(A), she is not entitled to a bond hearing. On the
other hand, Section 1226(a) more generally authorizes detention of a noncitizen pending
removal proceedings and entitles the noncitizen to a bond hearing. 	See Jennings v.
Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281, 306 (“Federal regulations provide that aliens detained under
§ 1226(a) 	receive 	bond 	hearings 	at 	the 	outset 	of 	detention.”) 	(citing 	8 	C.F.R.
§§ 236.1(d)(1), 1236.1(d)(1)).
Petitioner argues her continued detention is unlawful and violates the INA because
the IJ “denied bond solely on jurisdictional grounds.” 	Pet. at 7 (citation modified). She
argues she was “denied any individualized review of [her] detention by holding that [she
is] subject to mandatory detention.” 	Id. 	Petitioner also argues “DHS does not have
authority to now treat [her] as subject to mandatory detention” because she had previously
been released pursuant to § 1226. Id. Respondents contend Petitioner is an “applicant for
admission” and properly detained under § 1225(b)(2)(A). 	Resp. at 1, 3. 	Further,
Respondents claim (1) § 1225(b)(2)(A) is not limited to noncitizens “arriving” in the
United States, (2) all applicants for admission who are not subject to expedited removal
fall under § 1225(b)(2)(A), and (3) § 1226(a) is reserved for those who do not fall within
the confines of § 1225(b)(2)(A). Resp. at 4-8.
The undersigned has reviewed the statutory text, Congressional intent, legislative
history, and § 1226(a)’s application for the past three decades, as well as numerous recent
cases addressing this exact issue. For the reasons stated below, and adopting this Court’s
Case 5:26-cv-00318-SLP Document 11 Filed 03/26/26 Page 5 of 11

6
reasoning in Lopez v. Corecivic Cimmaron Corr. Facility, No. CIV-25-1175-SLP, 2026
WL 165490, at *3-7 (W.D. Okla. Jan. 21, 2026), the undersigned recommends the Court
grant the Petition in part to the extent Petitioner seeks a bond hearing under § 1226(a).
First, the INA limits the scope of the term “seeking admission” in § 1225(b)(2)(A)
so that section does not apply to noncitizens living in the United States when detained.
Section 1225(b)(2)(A) “only applies when a noncitizen ‘applicant for admission’ is actively
‘seeking admission’ into the United States.” 	Valdez v. Holt, No. CIV-25-1250-R, 2025
WL 3709021, at *3 (W.D. Okla. Dec. 22, 2025). If all “applicants for admission” are also
“seeking admission,” then § 1225(b)(2)(A)’s inclusion of the phrase “seeking admission”
would be redundant and superfluous. 	Lopez, 2026 WL 165490, at *4. 	The undersigned
best 	understands 	mandatory 	detention 	under 	§ 	1225(b)(2)(A) 	to 	apply 	to 	arriving
noncitizens actively seeking admission at or near the border or port of entry—not those
like Petitioner who have resided in the United States for years and were not arrested when
trying to cross the border.
In addition, the legislative history and recent amendment of § 1226 indicate that
section applies to noncitizens who previously entered without inspection and were residing
in the United States when apprehended. Notably, after passage of the Illegal Immigration
Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, the Department of Justice explained
that “despite being applicants for admission, aliens who are present without having been
admitted or paroled . . . will be eligible for bond and bond redetermination.” 	Inspection
and Expedited Removal of Aliens; Detention and Removal of Aliens; Conduct of Removal
Proceedings; Asylum Procedures, 62 Fed. Reg. 10312, 10323 (Mar. 6, 1997) (citation
Case 5:26-cv-00318-SLP Document 11 Filed 03/26/26 Page 6 of 11

7
modified). Further, Congress’ recent amendment to § 1226 mandating detention for certain
criminal noncitizens renders Respondents’ interpretation of § 1225(b)(2)(A) superfluous.
Finally, this Court, Chief Judge DeGiusti, Judge Jones, Judge Russell, Judge
Heaton, and myriad district courts have recently applied § 1226(a) to govern detention of
noncitizens like Petitioner.2 See Norboev v. Lyons, No. CIV-26-107-SLP, 2026 WL
497800, at *2 (W.D. Okla. Feb. 23, 2026) (finding § 1226(a) governs a similarly situated
petitioner’s detention and “join[ing] the decision reached by the vast majority of district
courts in this judicial district, in district courts within the Tenth Circuit and across the
country to have addressed the same issues as those raised by Petitioner”). This Court has
found the plain language, legislative history, and past immigration practices all support a
finding that “Petitioner’s detention is not governed by §1225(b)(2).” 	Lopez, 2026 WL
165490, at *7. The undersigned agrees with this Court’s reasoning, the majority of Judges
in this District, and the great weight of authority to conclude Petitioner falls within the
confines of § 1226(a), and not § 1225(b)(2)(A).3 This conclusion is also in accord with the
2 See, e.g., Lopez, 2026 WL 165490, at *7; Ramirez Rojas v. Noem, No. CIV-25-1236-HE,
2026 WL 94641, at *1 (W.D. Okla. Jan. 13, 2026); Valdez, 2025 WL 3709021, at *3; Colin
v. Holt, CIV-25-1189-D, 2025 WL 3645176, at *5 (W.D. Okla. Dec. 16, 2025); Urbina
Garcia v. Holt, No. CIV-25-1225-J, 2025 WL 3516071, at *4 (W.D. Okla. Dec. 8, 2025).
Two Judges in the District have applied § 1225(b)(2)(A). See Gutierrez Sosa v. Holt, No.
CIV-25-1257-PRW, 2026 WL 36344, at *3 (W.D. Okla. Jan. 6, 2026) (finding Ҥ 1225
unambiguously applies to” a similarly situated petitioner); Alvarado Montoya v. Holt, No.
CIV-25-01231-JD, 2025 WL 3733302, at *12 (W.D. Okla. Dec. 26, 2025) (finding Ҥ 1225
unambiguously 	deems 	[p]etitioner 	an 	‘applicant 	for 	admission’ 	who 	is 	‘seeking
admission’”).
3 This conclusion is further supported by the fact Petitioner was detained and later released
on her own recognizance under § 1226 in May 2022. Pet. at 7; Doc. 1-3; see, e.g., Bello
Case 5:26-cv-00318-SLP Document 11 Filed 03/26/26 Page 7 of 11

8
Seventh Circuit, which rejected the statutory interpretation of § 1225(b)(2) as urged by
Respondents. See Castañon-Nava v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 161 F.4th 1048, 1061
(7th Cir. 2025). But see Avila v. Bondi, No. 25-3248, --- F.4th ----, 2026 WL 819258, at
*3-6 (8th Cir. Mar. 25, 2026) (agreeing with Respondents’ interpretation); Buenrostro-
Mendez v. Bondi, 166 F.4th 494, 501-08 (5th Cir. 2026) (same).
Accordingly, the undersigned recommends the Court apply § 1226(a) to govern
Petitioner’s current detention. 	The Court should grant the Petition in part and order
Respondents to provide Petitioner with a bond hearing under § 1226(a) before a neutral IJ
within five business days or otherwise release her if he does not have a lawful bond hearing
within that period.
C. 	The Court should decline to address Petitioner’s remaining claims.
Petitioner also argues (1) her continued detention without a bond hearing violates
her rights to due process, (2) her medical condition has been worsened by her detention,
and (3) she is denied meaningful access to counsel. 	Pet. at 7-8. 	If the Court grants
Petitioner’s 	requested 	relief 	for 	a 	bond 	hearing 	under 	§ 	1226(a), 	the 	undersigned
recommends the Court decline to decide the merits of the due process claim based on her
continued detention. 	See, e.g., Colin v. Holt, CIV-25-1189-D, 2025 WL 3645176, at *6
n.3 (W.D. Okla. Dec. 16, 2025) (declining to decide the merits of Petitioner’s due process
claim when granting a bond hearing pursuant to § 1226(a)).
Chacon v. Hermosillo, No. 25-CV-02299, 2025 WL 3562666, at *2 (W.D. Wash. Dec. 12,
2025) (finding petitioner’s prior release under § 1226 indicates he “was—and continues to
be—subject to discretionary detention under § 1226”).
Case 5:26-cv-00318-SLP Document 11 Filed 03/26/26 Page 8 of 11

9
Further, the Court need not address Petitioner’s claims relating to her medical
condition and access to counsel as they are outside the scope of this Court’s habeas review.4
She seeks “immediate release from custody” or “a prompt and individualized bond hearing
before an immigration judge,” Pet. at 8, but no relief specifically related to her alleged
medical condition or limited access to counsel. Petitioner appears to raise these concerns
primarily to expedite these proceedings. A petitioner who challenges “the fact or duration”
of her confinement and seeks release from ICE custody must bring a § 2241 habeas petition,
but a detainee’s challenge to the conditions of her confinement must be brought through a
civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403
U.S. 388 (1971). Palma-Salazar v. Davis, 677 F.3d 1031, 1035 (10th Cir. 2012). As such,
Petitioner’s allegations related to her medical condition and access to counsel are not
properly raised in this Petition. See, e.g., Onuwa v. Field Off. Dir., No. 26-2403, 2026 WL
772435, at *3 (D.N.J. Mar. 19, 2026) (“Petitioner’s medical claim is therefore dismissed
without 	prejudice 	to 	Petitioner 	reraising 	his 	claim 	in 	an 	appropriate 	civil 	rights
proceeding.”); Ndou v. Noem, No. 26-CV-220, 2026 WL 686564, at *4 (D.N.M. Mar. 11,
2026) (finding an immigration habeas petitioner’s “claims related to conditions of
confinement are properly raised under a civil rights action, not a habeas corpus petition”).
4 Petitioner proceeds pro se in this action. The undersigned presumes her allegation about
access to counsel relates to her immigration attorney before the Immigration Court. 	See
Doc. 1-2 at 2 (referencing Petitioner’s immigration counsel before the Immigration Court).
Case 5:26-cv-00318-SLP Document 11 Filed 03/26/26 Page 9 of 11

10
D. 	Petitioner’s Motion for Expedited Consideration.
On February 20, 2026, Petitioner filed a Motion for Expedited Consideration,
requesting that the Court expedite consideration of her Petition considering her medical
condition and previous compliance with ICE reporting requirements. Doc. 6. Consistent
with similar habeas petitions for immigration detainees, the undersigned ordered an
expedited briefing schedule and has shortened the period for objections. See Doc. 8; infra
Section V. 	Accordingly, the undersigned recommends the Court DENY as moot
Petitioner’s Motion for Expedited Consideration.
V. 	Recommendation and Notice of Right to Object
For the foregoing reasons, the undersigned recommends that the Court GRANT in
part the Petition for habeas relief by ordering Respondents to provide Petitioner with a
bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within five business days or otherwise release
Petitioner if he has not received a lawful bond hearing within that period. 	The undersigned
further recommends the Court order Respondents to certify compliance by filing a status
report within seven business days of the Court’s order.
The parties are advised of their right to object to this Report and Recommendation.
See 28 U.S.C. § 636. 	Any objection must be filed not later than April 2, 2026. 	See id.
§ 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). 	If a party wishes to respond to the other party’s
objections, such response must be filed not later than April 7, 2026. 	See Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(b)(2). 	Failure to object timely waives the right to appellate review of the factual and
legal issues addressed in this Report and Recommendation. 	See Moore v. United States,
950 F.2d 656, 659 (10th Cir. 1991).
Case 5:26-cv-00318-SLP Document 11 Filed 03/26/26 Page 10 of 11

11
This Report and Recommendation disposes of all issues referred to the undersigned
Magistrate Judge in this matter.
ENTERED this 26 th day of March, 2026.
Case 5:26-cv-00318-SLP Document 11 Filed 03/26/26 Page 11 of 11