Ramirez Rojas v. Noem et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
RUBELIO GILBERTO RAMIREZ
ROJAS,
Petitioner,
-vs-
KRISTI NOEM, et al.,
Respondents.
)
)
)
)
)
) 	NO. CIV-25-1236-HE
)
)
)
)
ORDER
Petitioner Rubelio Gilberto Ramirez Rojas, a Guatemala citizen, was arrested by
United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers during a traffic stop
on September 4, 2025. 1 	At the time of his arrest, he had resided in the United States for
almost two decades and was living in Oklahoma City. He is married and has three children
who are United States citizens.
After determining petitioner did not have lawful immigration status, the ICE officers
took him into custody. 	That same day, a notice to appear was issued, charging that
petitioner, as an alien present in the United States who has not been admitted or paroled,
was subject to removal from the United States pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i).
Shortly thereafter, petitioner requested a bond hearing. In an order dated October 6, 2025,
an immigration judge determined she lacked jurisdiction over the request citing the Board
of Immigration Appeals’ decision, Matter of Yajure Hurtado, 29 I. & N. Dec. 216 (BIA
1 Petitioner was a passenger in the vehicle.
Case 5:25-cv-01236-HE Document 12 Filed 01/13/26 Page 1 of 4

2
2025). 	Petitioner remains detained at the Cimarron Correctional Facility in Cushing,
Oklahoma.
On October 17, 2025, petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28
U.S.C. § 2241, claiming violations of the Immigration and Nationality Act and the Fifth
Amendment 	due 	process 	clause. 	Petitioner 	requested 	release 	from 	custody, 	or
alternatively, a bond hearing pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). 	The habeas petition was
referred to United States Magistrate Judge Suzanne Mitchell for initial proceedings
consistent with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and (C). As ordered, respondents filed a response
to the petition, and petitioner filed a reply. On December 3, 2025, Judge Mitchell issued a
Report and Recommendation, recommending the court grant the habeas petition in part.
Specifically, she recommended that the court order respondents to bring petitioner before
an immigration judge for a bond hearing under § 1226(a) within seven business days or
otherwise release petitioner if he has not received a lawful bond hearing within that period.
She further recommended that the court order respondents to certify compliance by filing
a status report within ten business days of the court’s order.
Respondents have timely objected to the Report and Recommendation. They object
to Judge Mitchell’s recommendation that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g) does not bar the court of
jurisdiction to consider the habeas petition and that 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) governs petitioner’s
detention rather than 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A).
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), the court has conducted a de novo review of the
matter. 	Having done so, the court concurs with the recommended ruling. The court agrees
that the habeas petition does not fall within the narrow jurisdictional bar of § 1252(g).
Case 5:25-cv-01236-HE Document 12 Filed 01/13/26 Page 2 of 4

3
Other courts in this district addressing the issue have made the same determination. 	See
Valdez v. Holt, Case No. CIV-25-1250-R, 2025 WL 3709021, at *1 (W.D. Okla. Dec. 22,
2025); Colin v. Holt, Case No. CIV-25-1189-D, 2025 WL 3645176, at *2 (W.D. Okla.
Dec. 16, 2025); and Escarcega v. Olson, Case No. CIV-25-1129-J, 2025 WL 3243438, at
*1 (W.D. Okla. Nov. 20, 2025). Respondents’ arguments to the contrary are unpersuasive.
The court also agrees that § 1226(a), not § 1225(b)(2)(A), governs petitioner’s
detention. Although the issue involves some close questions of statutory interpretation, the
court joins those courts in this district which have rejected respondents’ reading of § 1225.
Id.2 	That reading was also rejected by the Seventh Circuit, the only court of appeals to
have addressed the issue to date. 	See Castañon-Nava v. U.S. Department of Homeland
Security, 161 F.4 th 1048, 1060-62 (7 th Cir. 2025). Because § 1226(a) governs petitioner’s
detention, the court concludes that he is entitled to an individualized bond hearing, as
recommended by Judge Mitchell. 3
Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation [Doc. #10] is ADOPTED. 	The
petition for writ of habeas corpus [Doc. #1] is GRANTED in part. 	Respondents are
ORDERED to provide petitioner with a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within
seven (7) business days or otherwise release petitioner if he has not received a lawful bond
2 But see, Gutierrez Sosa v. Holt, Case No. CIV-25-1257-PRW, 2026 WL 36344, at **3-5 (W.D.
Okla. Jan. 6, 2026); Montoya v. Holt, Case No. CIV-25-1231-JD, 2025 WL 3733302, at **5-12
(W.D. Okla. Dec. 26, 2025) (examining § 1225 and § 1226 and concluding petitioner properly
detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(B)).
3 In light of the court’s ruling, the court agrees with Judge Mitchell that it need not address the
merits of petitioner’s due process claim.
Case 5:25-cv-01236-HE Document 12 Filed 01/13/26 Page 3 of 4

4
hearing within that period. Respondents are further ORDERED to certify compliance by
filing a status report within ten (10) business days of the court’s order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 13th day of January, 2026.
Case 5:25-cv-01236-HE Document 12 Filed 01/13/26 Page 4 of 4