Tejada Barrios v. Warden Diamondback Correctional Facility

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
JOSEPH MARIO TEJADA BARRIOS,
Petitioner,
v.
FRED FIGUEROA, WARDEN
OF THE DIAMONDBACK
CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, et al.,
Respondents.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. CIV-26-1239-D
ORDER
Petitioner Joseph Mario Tejada Barrios filed an Amended Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [Doc. No. 6]. Petitioner is a citizen of Peru.
[Doc. No. 16]. Petitioner was detained by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
(“ICE”) on September 5, 2025, and his removal proceedings are ongoing. [Doc. No. 6, at
p. 2]. He is currently detained at the Diamondback Correctional Facility in Watonga,
Oklahoma. Id.
Petitioner is detained pursuant to the mandatory detention provision contained in 8
U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A). [Doc. No. 14]. Construing pro se Petitioner’s Amended Petition
liberally, he challenges his re-detention by ICE on various grounds, to include Petitioner’s
claim that his detention violates his due process rights, and that he is entitled to a bond
hearing pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226, at which the government should bear the burden of
proof. [Doc. No. 1]. Respondents filed a response in opposition [Doc. No. 14].
Case 5:26-cv-01239-D Document 25 Filed 10/15/26 Page 1 of 4

2
The matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Suzanne Mitchell for
initial proceedings in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and (C). [Doc. No. 4].
Judge Mitchell issued a Report and Recommendation (“Report”), recommending that the
Court grant in part the Amended Petition and order Respondents to provide Petitioner a
bond hearing pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). [Doc. No. 16]. Judge Mitchell also
recommended that the Court decline to address the issues of whether ICE violated
Petitioner’s right to due process or whether the government should bear the burden of
justifying Petitioner’s detention by clear and convincing evidence at his bond hearing. Id.
Additionally, Judge Mitchell recommended that the Court dismiss without prejudice for
lack of jurisdiction Petitioner’s Motion for Stay of Removal [Doc. No. 9] and his motions
for humanitarian parole and U-visa relief [Doc. Nos. 8, 12], and dismiss without prejudice
his motion regarding the conditions of his confinement [Doc. No. 8]. Id. Judge Mitchell
also recommended denying as moot Petitioner’s Motion to Appoint Counsel. [Doc. No.
15]. Id.
Respondents filed a timely Objection to the Report, asserting that Petitioner is
properly detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b), but conceding that pursuant to Santillan
Quiroz v. Mullin, 180 F.4th 1226 (10th Cir. 2026), he is entitled to a bond hearing. [Doc.
No. 22]. Petitioner objected in part, arguing that the Court should order his release because
his detention violates his right to due process. [Doc. No. 21].
Accordingly, the Court must make a de novo determination of the portions of the
Report to which a specific objection is made, and may accept, reject, or modify the
Case 5:26-cv-01239-D Document 25 Filed 10/15/26 Page 2 of 4

3
recommended decision, in whole or in part. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(b)(3).
The Court agrees with Judge Mitchell’s determination that Petitioner is detained
pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226, not § 1225(b)(2)(A). Moreover, the Court agrees with Judge
Mitchell’s conclusion that the relief warranted is a bond hearing pursuant to § 1226. See
Santillan Quiroz v. Mullin, 180 F.4th 1226, 1251 n. 13 (10th Cir. 2026) (directing the
district court to order the government to provide the petitioner a bond hearing within 7 days
“[b]ecause [the petitioner] can properly be subject to detention under § 1226(a).”).
Additionally, the Court agrees with Judge Mitchell’s recommendation to decline to address
the issue of whether to place the burden on the government to justify Petitioner’s detention
pending removal proceedings, at this time. See Singh v. Grant, No. CIV-26-279-J, 2026
WL 1035100, at *2 (W.D. Okla. Apr. 16, 2026) (finding a burden shift premature where
“no immigration judge has conducted a bond hearing in Petitioner’s case, much less
allocated the burden of proof or applied the particular facts of this case to the evidentiary
framework.”); see also Singh v. Figueroa, No. CIV-26-600-R, 2026 WL 1181699, at *1 n.2
(W.D. Okla. Apr. 30, 2026) (same); Rangel v. Mullin, No. CIV-26-568-D, 2026 WL
1625653, at *2 n.2 (W.D. Okla. June 5, 2026) (same).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation [Doc. No.
16] is ADOPTED. The Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241 [Doc. No. 6] is GRANTED in part as set forth herein.
Case 5:26-cv-01239-D Document 25 Filed 10/15/26 Page 3 of 4

4
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondents shall provide Petitioner with a
bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), within 7 days of the date of this Order, or release
Petitioner.1 A separate judgment shall be entered.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion for Stay of Removal [Doc.
No. 9] and his motions for humanitarian parole, U-visa relief, and alteration of his
conditions of confinement [Doc. Nos. 8, 12] are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion to Appoint Counsel [Doc.
No. 15] is DENIED AS MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 15 th day of October, 2026.
1 Given this determination, the Court declines to address Petitioner’s remaining claims at this time.
UN ITE D STATES DI ST RICT WDGE
Case 5:26-cv-01239-D Document 25 Filed 10/15/26 Page 4 of 4