Raj v. Anda-Ybarra et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
MEGH RAJ,
Petitioner,
v.
MARY DE ANDA-YBARRA, et al.,
Respondents.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. CIV-26-125-D
ORDER
Petitioner Megh Raj filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241 [Doc. No. 10]. Petitioner is a citizen of India who entered the United States in or
around March 19, 2023. He was released from custody and on or around June 25, 2023, he
applied for asylum. He was re-detained on December 16, 2025, and has been in the custody
of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) since that time. Petitioner is
currently housed at the Diamondback Correctional Facility in Watonga, Oklahoma.
Petitioner’s removal proceedings are ongoing. He is currently detained pursuant to
the mandatory detention provision contained in 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A). In his Petition,
Petitioner contends that § 1225(b)(2)(A) does not apply to him because he has “already
entered and [was] residing in the United States at the time [he] was apprehended.” [Doc.
No. 1, at 11]. Because of his assertion that § 1225(b)(2)(A) does not apply to him, Petitioner
contends he is being held in violation of the Immigration and Naturalization Act, 8 U.S.C.
§ 1101 et seq. (INA). Petitioner seeks release from custody or, alternatively, a bond hearing
pursuant to § 1226(a).
Case 5:26-cv-00125-D Document 9 Filed 03/27/26 Page 1 of 3

2
Respondents filed a Response in Opposition to the Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus [Doc. No. 7], and Petitioner filed a reply [Doc. No. 8]. The matter is fully briefed
and at issue.
Respondents assert that § 1225(b)(2)(A) applies to Petitioner’s detention, and not §
1226(a). Generally, Ҥ 1225 mandates detention without the opportunity for a bond hearing
for the noncitizens to whom it applies.” Hernandez v. Baltazar, No. 1:25-cv-03094-CNS,
2025 WL 2996643, at *3 (D. Colo. Oct. 24, 2025) (citation omitted). In comparison, § 1226
provides the noncitizen with the opportunity for a bond hearing. Id.; see also Aranda v.
Olson, No. 4:25-cv-156-GNS, 2025 WL 3499061, at *4 (W.D. Ky. Dec. 5, 2025) (“Overall,
Section 1226(a) provides for a discretionary authority requiring an individualized bond
determination before a noncitizen may be taken into custody.”) (quotation and citation
omitted).
As Respondents acknowledge, this Court has previously construed § 1225(b)(2)(A)
as unambiguously requiring that an “applicant for admission” also be “seeking admission”
for the section to control.1 See Colin, 2025 WL 3645176, at *4. Further, this Court has
previously declined to find that refusing to self-deport or submitting an asylum application
constitute “seeking admission” for purposes of § 1225(b)(2)(A). Cruz-Hernandez, 2026
WL 18932, at *1; Malacidze v. Noem, No. CIV-25-1527-D, 2026 WL 227155, at *3 (W.D.
Okla. Jan. 28, 2026); see also Li v. Grant, No. CIV-25-1426-HE, 2026 WL 147438, at *1
1 On this issue, the Court finds persuasive the analysis provided by the Seventh Circuit in
Castañon-Nava v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 161 F.4th 1048 (7th Cir. 2025). The Court also
acknowledges the contrary 2-1 decisions in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, 166 F.4th 494 (5th Cir.
2026) and Avila v. Bondi, --- F.4th ----, 2026 WL 819258 (8th Cir. 2026).
Case 5:26-cv-00125-D Document 9 Filed 03/27/26 Page 2 of 3

3
(W.D. Okla. Jan. 20, 2026) (“The court additionally agrees with Judge Maxfield that
§ 1225(b)(2)(A) does not apply even though petitioner filed an application for asylum.”);
Toledo Santos v. Grant, No. CIV-25-1433-SLP, 2026 WL 184287, at *1-2 (W.D. Okla. Jan.
23, 2026) (ordering the respondents to provide the petitioner a bond hearing under
§ 1226(a) where the petitioner had been released on his own recognizance and later applied
for asylum).
In this case, because Petitioner has been residing in the United States for years and
was present in the country when he was detained, Petitioner does not fall into the mandatory
detention provision of § 1225(b)(2)(A). See Colin, 2025 WL 3645176, at *5; Malacidze,
2026 WL 227155, at *3. Accordingly, § 1226(a) controls Petitioner’s detention, and
Petitioner is therefore entitled to a bond hearing.2 See Hernandez, 2025 WL 2996643, at
*3 (citing Jennings, 583 U.S. at 306) (“Federal regulations also provide that noncitizens
detained pursuant to § 1226(a) are entitled to individualized bond hearings.”).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [Doc. No. 1] is GRANTED in part as set forth herein.
Respondents shall provide Petitioner with a prompt bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a),
or release Petitioner. A separate judgment shall be entered.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 27 th day of March, 2026.
2 Given this determination, the Court declines to address Petitioner’s remaining claims at this time.
. DeGIUSTI
Chief United States District Judge
Case 5:26-cv-00125-D Document 9 Filed 03/27/26 Page 3 of 3