Sonu v. Figueroa et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
SONU SONU,
Petitioner,
v.
FRED FIGUEROA, et al.,
Respondents.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. CIV-26-2323-R
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Petitioner Sonu Sonu, a noncitizen proceeding through counsel,1 seeks a
writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Doc. 1.2 United States District
Judge David L. Russell referred the matter to the undersigned Magistrate
Judge for proceedings consistent with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), (C). Doc. 3.
Respondents filed a response, Doc. 10,3 and Petitioner has replied, Doc. 11. So,
the matter is at issue.
1 	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)).
2 	Citations to a court document are to its electronic case filing designation
and pagination. Except for capitalization, quotations are verbatim unless
otherwise indicated.
3 	The Warden of the Diamondback Correctional Facility, Fred Figueroa, is
not a federal official and the Government did not file its response on his behalf.
Doc. 10, at 1 n.1.
Case 5:26-cv-02323-R Document 12 Filed 10/14/26 Page 1 of 8

2
For the reasons set forth below, the undersigned recommends the Court
grant the habeas petition in part and order Respondents to provide Petitioner
with an individualized bond hearing within ten days or otherwise release him
from custody.
I. 	Factual background and Petitioner’s claims.
Petitioner is a native and citizen of India who entered the United States
on or around April 28, 2023. Doc. 1, at 1. He was detained in the interior of the
country and placed into removal proceedings. Id. He was later released from
Department of Homeland Security custody on his own recognizance, “subject
to Alternatives to Detention (“ATD”) supervision and ICE [Immigration and
Customs Enforcement] reporting requirements.” Id. Petitioner applied for
asylum and was granted employment authorization based on his pending
application. Id. at 2.
On 	July 	26, 	2026, 	Petitioner 	was 	pulled 	over 	while 	working 	as 	a
commercial truck driver. Id. at 6-7. Petitioner supplied his commercial driver’s
license and valid employment authorization. Id. He was detained and taken
into custody. Id. at 7. Petitioner states that he complied with the conditions of
his release and has no criminal record. Id. Petitioner remains detained at the
Diamondback Correctional Facility in Watonga, Oklahoma, and his removal
proceedings are ongoing. Id. at 8.
Petitioner 	presents 	four 	claims 	for 	relief: 	violation 	of 	his 	Fifth
Case 5:26-cv-02323-R Document 12 Filed 10/14/26 Page 2 of 8

3
Amendment substantive due process rights; violation of his procedural due
process rights; violation of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA); and
violation of the Fourth Amendment. Id. at 15-25.
Petitioner seeks a declaration that his re-detention without a hearing
violated the Fourth and Fifth Amendments and the INA; a declaration that his
detention is authorized only by 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), not § 1225(b); release subject
to his prior conditions of supervision; an injunction preventing Respondents
from 	re-detaining 	Petitioner 	without 	adequate 	process; 	vacatur 	of
Respondents’ custody determination; attorneys’ fees and costs4; and any other
relief the Court deems just and proper. Id. at 25-26.
II. 	Standard of review.
An application for a writ of habeas corpus “is an attack by a person in
custody upon the legality of that custody, and . . . the traditional function of
the writ is to secure release from illegal custody.” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S.
475, 484 (1973). Habeas corpus relief is warranted only if the petitioner “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
4 	Petitioner’s counsel may seek attorney’s fees and costs at the conclusion
of these proceedings. 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(B).
Case 5:26-cv-02323-R Document 12 Filed 10/14/26 Page 3 of 8

4
1305, 1310 (10th Cir. 2004) (citing Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 687-88
(2001)).
III. 	Discussion.
A. 	Petitioner is not subject to mandatory detention under 8
U.S.C. § 1225(b).
Respondents 	argue 	that 	any 	relief 	should 	be 	limited 	to 	a 	custody
redetermination hearing. Doc. 10, at 4. “[T]his Court has previously construed
8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) as unambiguously requiring that an ‘applicant for
admission’ also be ‘seeking admission’ for the section to control.” Munoz v.
Grant, No. CIV-26-544-D, 2026 WL 1078862, at *1 (W.D. Okla. Apr. 20, 2026).
“This conclusion is in accord with Santillan Quiroz [Mullin, 180 F.4th 1226
(10th Cir. 2026], in which the Tenth Circuit held that ‘§ 1225(b)(2)(A)’s
application is limited to the border.’” Ramos Perez v. Grant, No. CIV-26-721-D,
2026 WL 2033144, at *1 (W.D. Okla. July 14, 2026) (quoting Santillan Quiroz,
180 F.4th at 1240); see Santillan Quiroz, 180 F.4th at 1237 (“[N]oncitizens who
entered the United States and were thereafter detained in the interior of the
country are usually subject to § 1226(a) (and thus eligible for bond), not §
1225(b)(2)(A).”).
Petitioner was not “seeking admission” at the border when ICE detained
him. 	So 	he 	“does 	not 	fall 	into 	the 	mandatory 	detention 	provision 	of 	§
1225(b)(2)(A).” Ramos Perez, 2026 WL 2033144, at *2. Instead, § 1226(a)
Case 5:26-cv-02323-R Document 12 Filed 10/14/26 Page 4 of 8

5
controls his detention and entitles him to a bond hearing. Id. (citing Santillan
Quiroz, 180 F.4th at 1251 n.13); see also Zhakhonov v. Grant, No. CIV-26-350-
J, 2026 WL 1865418, at *3 (W.D. Okla. June 29, 2026) (concluding that
detention of a noncitizen who had resided in the interior for years before ICE
detained him “is more naturally characterized as detention ‘pending a decision
on whether the alien is to be removed from the United States’ within the
meaning of § 1226(a)”).
B. 	Petitioner is entitled to a bond hearing under § 1226(a).
Because 	Petitioner 	is 	detained 	under 	§ 	1226(a), 	the 	undersigned
concludes a bond hearing is the appropriate remedy. See, e.g., Santillan Quiroz,
180 F.4th at 1247 (explaining that noncitizens subject to § 1226(a) are “eligible
for bond”).
“Unlike § 1225(b)(1), § 1226(a) contemplates individualized custody
determinations and authorizes release on bond or conditional parole pending
completion of removal proceedings.” Zhakhonov, 2026 WL 1865418, at *3.
Here, the Government has not provided Petitioner with an individualized
custody determination since his detention in July 2026. Doc. 1, at 6-7. See, e.g.,
Zhakhonov, 2026 WL 1865418, at *3 (“[T]he process afforded by § 1226(a) itself
serves 	as 	the 	mechanism 	through 	which 	a 	detainee's 	liberty 	interest 	is
protected.”). 	Because 	this 	is 	“the 	very 	process 	Congress 	prescribed 	for
detainees held pursuant to § 1226(a),” the Court should order Respondents to
Case 5:26-cv-02323-R Document 12 Filed 10/14/26 Page 5 of 8

6
provide Petitioner with a bond hearing under § 1226(a). Zhakhonov, 2026 WL
1865418, at *3; see also Navarrete v. Mullin, No. CIV-26-224-SLP, 2026 WL
2323345, at *2 (W.D. Okla. Aug. 11, 2026) (finding the petitioner had a
“protected liberty interest arising from her release on her own recognizance”
and that the level of process owed to her was “for Respondents to provide [her]
with a bond hearing pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226”); Todyrenchuk v. Warden of
Diamondback Corr. Facility, No. CIV-26-1243-J, 2026 WL 2186977, at *3
(W.D. Okla. July 29, 2026) (“[T]he Court concludes the proper remedy in this
case is not immediate release, but an individualized bond hearing before an
Immigration Judge exercising jurisdiction under § 1226(a).”).
The Court should thus grant the petition in part and order Respondents
to provide Petitioner with a bond hearing under § 1226(a) within ten days; if
they fail to do so, they must release Petitioner. See, e.g., Santillan Quiroz, 180
F.4th at 1251 n.13 (directing district court to order the government to provide
the petitioner a bond hearing within seven days “[b]ecause [the petitioner] can
properly be subject to detention under § 1226(a).”); see also Colin v. Holt, No.
CIV-25-1189-D, 	2025 	WL 	3645176, 	at 	*6 	(W.D. 	Okla. 	Dec. 	16, 	2025)
(“Petitioner 	has 	not 	received 	a 	bond 	hearing 	and 	Respondents 	raise 	no
objection challenging their obligations to provide bond hearings for noncitizens
that are detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a).”).
C. 	The Court should decline to address Petitioner’s remaining
Case 5:26-cv-02323-R Document 12 Filed 10/14/26 Page 6 of 8

7
claims.
Given the undersigned’s recommendation to grant Petitioner a bond
hearing, 	the 	Court 	should 	decline 	to 	address 	the 	merits 	of 	Petitioner’s
remaining claims for relief. The Court can grant him relief under § 1226(a).
See Colin, 2025 WL 3645176, at *6 n.3 (“Because the Court grants the relief
the Petitioner requests based on the applicability of 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), the
Court declines to decide the merits of Petitioner’s due process claim.”); see also
Ramos Perez v. Grant, No. CIV-26-721-D, 2026 WL 2033144, at *2 n.2 (W.D.
Okla. July 14, 2026) (declining to address the petitioner’s remaining claims
after ordering a bond hearing).
IV. 	Recommendation and notice of right to object.
For the reasons set forth above, the undersigned recommends the Court
grant Petitioner’s habeas petition in part and order Respondents to
provide 	Petitioner 	with 	an 	individualized 	bond 	hearing 	before 	a
neutral Immigration Judge within ten days; if they fail to do so, they
must release Petitioner. The undersigned also recommends that the Court
order Respondents to certify their compliance with the Court’s order by filing
a status report within ten business days of the Court’s order, and to promptly
provide a copy of this order to counsel for the Warden of the Diamondback
Correctional Facility.
Case 5:26-cv-02323-R Document 12 Filed 10/14/26 Page 7 of 8

8
The undersigned advises the parties of their right to file an objection to
this Report and Recommendation with the Clerk of this Court by October 21,
2026, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
72.5 The undersigned further advises the parties that failure to make timely
objections to this Report and Recommendation waives the right to appellate
review of both factual and legal questions contained herein. Moore v. United
States, 950 F.2d 656, 659 (10th Cir. 1991). This Report and Recommendation
disposes of the issues referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge in the
captioned matter.
ENTERED this 14th day of October, 2026.
5 	Given the expedited nature of these proceedings, the undersigned has
reduced the typical objection time to this Report and Recommendation. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2) advisory committee’s note to 1983 addition (noting that
rule establishing 14-day response time “does not extend to habeas corpus
petitions, which are covered by the specific rules relating to proceedings under
Sections 2254 and 2255 of Title 28.”); see also Whitmore v. Parker, 484 F. App’x
227, 231 & n.2 (10th Cir. 2012) (“The Rules Governing § 2254 Cases may be
applied discretionarily to habeas petitions under § 2241” and that “while the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure may be applied in habeas proceedings, they
need not be in every instance–particularly where strict application would
undermine the habeas review process”).
Case 5:26-cv-02323-R Document 12 Filed 10/14/26 Page 8 of 8