Hasanov v. Siegel et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
IKROM ZIY ADULLAEVICH 	)
HASANOV, 	)
)
Petitioner, 	)
)
vs. 	) 	Case No. CIV-26-82-R
)
MARK SIEGEL, et al., 	)
)
Respondents. 	)
ORDER
Petitioner, a citizen of Uzbekistan that entered the United States in October 2023
without admission or parole, is currently in the custody of the U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement. His removal proceedings are ongoing and he is currently detained
pursuant to the mandatory detention provision contained in 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A). He
filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [Doc. No. 1]
contending that § 1225(b)(2)(A) does not apply to noncitizens like him who previously
entered the country without inspection and that his continued detention without a bond
hearing violates his due process rights. Respondents filed a Response in Opposition [Doc.
No. 9] and the matter is now at issue.
The key question in this case is whether Petitioner is properly detained pursuant to
§ 1225(b)(2)(A) or whether he must instead be detained pursuant to § 1226(a). Section
§ 1225(b)(2)(A) states
Subject to subparagraphs (B) and (C), in the case of an alien who is an
applicant for admission, if the examining immigration officer determines that
an alien seeking admission is not clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be
Case 5:26-cv-00082-R Document 10 Filed 02/26/26 Page 1 of 4

2
admitted, the alien shall be detained for a proceeding under section 1229a of
this title.
Respondents contend this provision applies to Petitioner because he is plainly an “applicant
for admission,” which is defined as “an alien present in the United States who has not been
admitted or who arrives in the United States.” 8 U.S.C. § 1225(a)(1). Petitioner counters
that § 1225(b)(2)(A) applies to recent arrivals and those seeking admission at a border as
opposed to noncitizen that have been unlawfully living in the United States. The issue is
significant because § 1225(b)(2)(A) provides for mandatory detention whereas § 1226(a)
provides for conditional parole or release on bond pending a decision in the removal
proceedings.
Two circuit courts have considered this issue. In Castanon-Nava v. U.S. Dep't of
Homeland Sec., 161 F.4 th 1048, 1061-62 (7th Cir. 2025), the Seventh Circuit, addressing
the arguments on a preliminary record, concluded that § 1225(b)(2)(A) was unlikely to
apply to noncitizens that are already present in the country. The Fifth Circuit reached a
different conclusion in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, No. 25-20496, 2026 WL 323330 (5th
Cir. Feb. 6, 2026p.
This Court has previously concluded that, based on the plain language of the
statutory text, § 1225(b)(2)(A) applies when a noncitizen is actively seeking admission
whereas § 1226(a) governs when a noncitizen has already been unlawfully living in the
United States. See Valdez v. Holt, Case No. CIV-25-1250-R, 2025 WL 3709021, at *1
(W.D. Okla. Dec. 22, 2025); Perez v. Grant, No. CIV-25-1560-R, 2026 WL 315065, at *1
Case 5:26-cv-00082-R Document 10 Filed 02/26/26 Page 2 of 4

3
(W.D. Okla. Feb. 5, 2026).1 Although “[t]he 2-1 decision in Buenrostro-Mendez makes
clear that strong arguments support both statutory readings of the parties,” this Court
“remains persuaded that § 1226(a) governs and continues to follow similar rulings by the
judges in this district.” Campa v. Johnson, No. CIV-26-0001-HE, 2026 WL 446978, at *1
(W.D. Okla. Feb. 17, 2026). Further, the Court rejects Respondents’ argument that
Petitioner’s asylum application renders him subject to detention under § 1225(b)(2). See Li
v. Grant, No. CIV-25-1426-HE, 2026 WL 147438, at *1 (W.D. Okla. Jan. 20, 2026)
(concluding that § 1226(a) applies even though Petitioner applied for asylum); Malacidze
v. Noem, No. CIV-25-1527-D, 2026 WL 227155, at *3 (W.D. Okla. Jan. 28, 2026) (same);
Toledo Santos v. Grant, No. CIV-25-1433-SLP, 2026 WL 184287, at *2 (W.D. Okla. Jan.
23, 2026) (same).
Here, Petitioner was detained approximately two years after arriving in the country.
His detention is controlled by § 1226(a) and he is entitled to a prompt bond hearing. This
conclusion is in accordance “with 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.” Toledo Santos, 2026 WL 184287, at *2.
Accordingly, the Petition is GRANTED in part and Respondents are directed to
provide Petitioner with a prompt bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). Given that the
1 The Court adopts the reasoning and conclusions set forth in these prior orders. For the
reasons stated in these orders and other persuasive authority, the Court also rejects
Respondents’ contention that the Court lacks jurisdiction to consider the Petition. See Colin
v. Holt, No. CIV-25-1189-D, 2025 WL 3645176, at *2 (W.D. Okla. Dec. 16, 2025); Diaz
v. Holt, No. CIV-25-1179-J, 2025 WL 3296310, at *1 (W.D. Okla. Nov. 26, 2025).
Case 5:26-cv-00082-R Document 10 Filed 02/26/26 Page 3 of 4

4
Court has granted Petitioner's request for a bond hearing, the Court declines to address
Petitioner's due process claim at this time.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 26 th day of February, 2026.
Case 5:26-cv-00082-R Document 10 Filed 02/26/26 Page 4 of 4