Campa v. Johnson et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
JUAN CHAVEZ CAMPA,
Petitioner,
-vs-
JOSHUA JOHNSON, et al.,
Respondents.
)
)
)
)
) 	NO. CIV-26-0001-HE
)
)
)
)
ORDER
On October 30, 2025, petitioner Juan Chavez Campa, a Mexican citizen residing in
Illinois, was apprehended by United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)
officers in the Chicago area. He has resided in the United States for over 31 years and has
two children who are United States citizens. 	ICE immediately instituted removal
proceedings against petitioner, alleging he was an alien present in the United States who
has not been admitted or paroled. 	See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i). 	Petitioner filed an
application for cancellation of removal and adjustment of status, seeking lawful residence
in the United States. 	In accordance with a Department of Homeland Security policy,
petitioner was subjected to mandatory detention pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A),
without any eligibility for a bond hearing. 	He is currently housed in the Kay County
Detention Center in Newkirk, Oklahoma.
On January 2, 2026, petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28
U.S.C. § 2241, claiming his mandatory detention pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A),
rather than pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), which provides for a bond hearing, violates the
Case 5:26-cv-00001-HE Document 14 Filed 02/17/26 Page 1 of 3

2
Immigration and Nationality Act and the Fifth Amendment due process clause. Petitioner
requested release from custody, or alternatively, a bond hearing pursuant § 1226(a). The
habeas corpus petition was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Amanda L. Maxfield
for initial proceedings consistent with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and (C). 	As ordered,
respondents filed a response to the petition, petitioner filed a reply, and respondents filed
a supplemental brief addressing new matters raised in the reply. On February 3, 2026, the
magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation, recommending the court grant the
habeas petition in part. 	Specifically, she recommended the court order respondents to
provide petitioner with an individualized bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within
seven 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 days of the court’s order.
Respondents have timely objected to the Report and Recommendation. 	They
specifically recognize this court’s ruling in Ramirez Rojas v. Noem, No. CIV-25-1236-HE,
2026 WL 94641 (W.D. Okla. Jan. 13, 2026), and similar rulings by other judges in this
district [Doc. #13, ECF p. 1, n. 1, citing cases], concluding that § 1226(a) rather than
§ 1225(b)(2)(A) governs petitioner’s detention. 	However, respondents urge the court to
follow a recent contrary ruling by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in Buenrostro-Mendez
v. Bondi, ___ F.4 th ___, 2026 WL 323330 (5 th Cir. Feb. 6, 2026). 	Upon de novo review
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the court declines to reconsider its prior ruling. The 2-
1 decision in Buenrostro-Mendez makes clear that strong arguments support both statutory
readings of the parties. The court, however, remains persuaded that § 1226(a) governs and
Case 5:26-cv-00001-HE Document 14 Filed 02/17/26 Page 2 of 3

3
continues to follow similar rulings by the judges in this district and the Seventh Circuit
Court of Appeals in Castanon-Nava v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 161 F.4th
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 the
magistrate judge.
Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation [Doc. #12] 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
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.
A separate judgment will be entered.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 17th day of February, 2026.
Case 5:26-cv-00001-HE Document 14 Filed 02/17/26 Page 3 of 3