Carranza-Mejia v. Noem et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
JOSELIN DANIEL CARRANZA-
MEJIA
Petitioner,
v.
KRISTI NOEM, et al.,
Respondents.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. CIV-26-076-SLP
O R D E R
Petitioner, Joselin Daniel Carranza-Mejia, represented by counsel, filed a Petition
for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Before the Court is the Report
and Recommendation [Doc. No. 11] (R&R) of United States Magistrate Judge Chris M.
Stephens. The Magistrate Judge recommends granting, in part, the Petition. Respondent
has filed an Objection [Doc. No. 12] and Petitioner has filed a Partial Objection [Doc. No.
13]. The matter is at issue.1 The Court reviews de novo any portion of the R&R to which
the parties have made specific objection. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).
Having conducted that review, and for the reasons that follow, the Court ADOPTS the
R&R and GRANTS IN PART the Petition.
Petitioner, a Honduran national, entered the United States in November 2016. At
some point, he was placed into removal proceedings by U.S. Immigration and Customs
1 Neither party filed a response to the other party’s objection and the time for doing so has
expired. See R&R at 27 (directing responses to be filed no later than February 18, 2026).
Case 5:26-cv-00076-SLP Document 14 Filed 02/20/26 Page 1 of 5

2
Enforcement (ICE). He has filed an Application for Asylum and for Withholding of
Removal. See Doc. No. 9-1.
In October 2025, ICE apprehended Petitioner and detained him pursuant to 8 U.S.C.
§ 1225(b)(2)(A). As set forth in the R&R, Petitioner has been held without bond because
all 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 United States without admission or
parole are ineligible for a bond hearing.” R&R [Doc. No. 11] at 2. Petitioner has been
continuously detained at Diamondback Correctional Facility in Watonga, Oklahoma since
his arrest pursuant to the mandatory detention provision set forth in § 1225(b)(2)(A).
On January 16, 2026, Petitioner filed this action, claiming violations of the
Immigration and Nationality Act and a violation of his due process rights under the Fifth
Amendment to the United States Constitution. Petitioner claims that § 1225(b)(2)(A) does
not apply to him and that his continued detention without a bond hearing violates his due
process rights. As relief, Petitioner seeks release from custody or, in the alternative, a bond
hearing pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a).
The Magistrate Judge issued a thorough and well-reasoned R&R and concluded that
habeas relief should be granted, in part. As an initial matter, the Magistrate Judge found
that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g) is not a jurisdictional bar to this Court’s review of the claims
asserted by Petitioner. The Magistrate Judge then recommended that the Court grant
habeas relief and order Respondents to provide Petitioner with an individualized bond
hearing under § 1226(a) within five business days or otherwise release Petitioner if he has
not received a lawful bond hearing within that time period. The Magistrate Judge also
Case 5:26-cv-00076-SLP Document 14 Filed 02/20/26 Page 2 of 5

3
recommended that the Court order Respondents to certify compliance by filing a status
report within seven business days of the Court’s Order. Finally, the Magistrate Judge
recommended that the Court decline to address Petitioner’s due process claims.
Respondents object to the R&R, arguing that the Magistrate Judge erroneously
found that 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) governs Petitioner’s detention rather than 8 U.S.C.
§ 1225(b)(2)(A). The Court concurs with the Magistrate Judge’s findings and, having
thoroughly reviewed the Objection, rejects Respondents’ statutory interpretation of
§§ 1226(a) and 1225(b)(2)(A). The Court further adopts the reasoning set forth in Lopez
v. Corecivic Cimmaron Corr. Facility, No. CIV-25-1175-SLP, 2026 WL 165490 at *3-7
(W.D. Okla. Jan. 21, 2026), where this Court has previously addressed, in a more detailed
Order, these same issues. In doing so, the Court joins the decision reached by the vast
majority of district courts in this judicial district,2 in district courts within the Tenth Circuit3
and across the country4 to have addressed the same issues as those raised by Petitioner.5
The Court’s decision is also in accord with the Seventh Circuit, which rejected the statutory
2 See, e.g., Ramirez Rojas v. Noem, No. CIV-25-1236-HE, 2026 WL 94641 at *2 (W.D. Okla. Jan.
13, 2026) (collecting cases in this judicial district finding that § 1252(g) does not present a
jurisdictional bar); Lopez, 2026 WL 165490 at *5 (collecting cases in this judicial district
concluding that §1225(b)(2) does not govern the petitioner’s detention).
3 See, e.g., Aguilar Tanchez v. Noem, No. 2:25-cv-1150, 2026 WL 125184 (D. Utah Jan. 16, 2026);
Hernandez v. Baltazar, No. 1:25-CV-03094-CNS, 2025 WL 2996643 (D. Colo. Oct. 24, 2025).
4 See, e.g., Lopez, 2026 WL 165490 at *7 (collecting cases concluding that §1226(a) is the
governing statutory framework).
5 The Court is certainly aware of authority to the contrary, including two decisions entered in this
judicial district. See Gutierrez Sosa v. Holt, No. CIV-25-1257-PRW, 2026 WL 36344 at **3-5
(W.D. Okla. Jan. 6, 2026); Montoya v. Holt, No. CIV-235-1231-JD, 2025 WL 3733302 at **5-12
(W.D. Okla. Dec. 26, 2025).
Case 5:26-cv-00076-SLP Document 14 Filed 02/20/26 Page 3 of 5

4
interpretation of §1225(b)(2) as urged by Respondents. See Castañon-Nova v. U.S. Dep’t
of Homeland Sec., 161 F.4th 1048, 1061 (7th Cir. 2025); but see Buenrostro-Mendez v.
Bondi, No. 25-20496, 2026 WL 323330 (5th Cir. Feb. 6, 2026). Accordingly, the Court
concludes that § 1226(a) governs Petitioner’s detention, and he is entitled to an
individualized bond hearing.
Petitioner has filed a partial objection and argues that the Magistrate Judge erred in
not considering his due process claims. Because the Court grants habeas relief to Petitioner
on the basis of his statutory claim and directs that Petitoner be provided a bond hearing in
accordance with § 1226(a), the Court declines to address the due process claims.6
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation [Doc. No.
11] is ADOPTED and the Amended Petition [Doc. No. 7] is GRANTED IN PART as
follows:
1. Count I of the Amended Petition is GRANTED and Respondents are
ORDERED to provide Petitioner with a bond hearing pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within
five (5) business days of this Order, or otherwise release Petitioner if he has not received a
lawful bond hearing within that period.
2. Counts II and III are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondents shall certify their compliance with
this Order by filing a status report within seven business days of this Order. The status
6 To this end, Petitioner raises the due process claims in rather conclusory and unclear terms.
Case 5:26-cv-00076-SLP Document 14 Filed 02/20/26 Page 4 of 5

5
report shall detail whether Petitioner was provided a bond hearing or has been released,
including the associated dates with either action.
A separate judgment shall be entered.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 20th day of February, 2026.
Case 5:26-cv-00076-SLP Document 14 Filed 02/20/26 Page 5 of 5