Norboev v. Lyons et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
ALISHER NORBOEV,
Petitioner,
v.
TODD M. LYONS, et al.,
Respondents.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. CIV-26-107-SLP
O R D E R
Petitioner, Alisher Norboev, 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. 15] (R&R) of United States Magistrate Judge Chris M.
Stephens. The Magistrate Judge recommends granting, in part, the Petition. Respondents
have filed an Objection [Doc. No. 16] to which Petitioner responded [Doc. No. 17] and the
matter is at issue. 	The Court reviews de novo any portion of the R&R to which
Respondents 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 citizen of Uzbekistan, entered the United States on or about April 18,
2023. 	On April 21, 2023, he was placed into removal proceedings by U.S. Immigration
and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and was subsequently released from detention in April
2023. On July 31, 2023, Petitioner filed an application for asylum and further alleges that
Case 5:26-cv-00107-SLP Document 18 Filed 02/23/26 Page 1 of 5

2
since his release in April 2023, he has not engaged in unlawful activity, committed any
crimes, or violated any conditions of release imposed by ICE.
On January 8, 2026, ICE apprehended Petitioner during a traffic stop. 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. 15] at 2. In the Petition, Petitioner alleges he was detained at
Cimmaron Correctional Facility in Cushing, Oklahoma. 	However, as noted in the R&R,
Petitioner 	was 	transferred 	to 	the 	Diamondback 	Correctional 	Facility 	in 	Watonga,
Oklahoma where he remains detained.1
On January 9, 	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. R&R [Doc. No. 15] at 3; Pet. [Doc. No. 1].
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
1 See ICE Online Detainee Locator System, at https://locator.ice.gov/odls/#/results (last
visited Feb. 23, 2026).
Case 5:26-cv-00107-SLP Document 18 Filed 02/23/26 Page 2 of 5

3
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
recommended that the Court order Respondents to certify compliance by filing a status
report within ten business days of the Court’s Order. 	Finally, the Magistrate Judge
recommended that the Court decline to address Petitioner’s due process claim2 and deny
Petitioner’s Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order as moot.
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,3 in district courts within the Tenth Circuit4
2 Neither party has objected to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation that the Court need not
address Petitioner’s due process claim and the Court concurs with that recommendation.
3 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).
4 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).
Case 5:26-cv-00107-SLP Document 18 Filed 02/23/26 Page 3 of 5

4
and across the country5 to have addressed the same issues as those raised by Petitioner.6
The Court’s decision is also in accord with the Seventh Circuit, which rejected the statutory
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.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation [Doc. No.
15] is ADOPTED and the Petition [Doc. No. 1] is GRANTED IN PART as follows:
1. 	Petitioner’s claim for violation of the Immigration Nationality Act is
GRANTED. 	Respondents are ORDERED to provide Petitioner with a bond hearing
pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within seven (7) days of the date of this Order, or otherwise
release Petitioner if he has not received a lawful bond hearing within that period.
2. 	Petitioner’s due process claim is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondents shall certify their compliance with
this Order by filing a status report within ten (10) days of this Order. 	The status report
5 See, e.g., Lopez, 2026 WL 165490 at *7 (collecting cases concluding that §1226(a) is the
governing statutory framework).
6 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-00107-SLP Document 18 Filed 02/23/26 Page 4 of 5

5
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 23 rd day of February, 2026.
Case 5:26-cv-00107-SLP Document 18 Filed 02/23/26 Page 5 of 5