Salaria v. Grant et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
VARUN SALARIA,
Petitioner,
v.
SCARLET GRANT, et al.,
Respondents.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. CIV-26-141-D
ORDER
Petitioner Varun Salaria filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2241 [Doc. No. 1]. Petitioner is a citizen of India who entered the United States
on or about May 30, 2022. Id. at p. 15. Petitioner was released from custody on or about
May 31, 2022, and filed an application for asylum. Id. However, Petitioner was re-detained
on November 10, 2025, and has been in the custody of the U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE) since that time. Id. He is currently housed at the Cimarron Correctional
Facility in Cushing, Oklahoma. Id. at p. 16.
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 is not an arriving
alien, as he was residing in the interior of the United States when he was re-detained, and
is not “seeking admission” within the meaning of § 1225(b)(2)(A). [Doc. No. 1]. Because
of his assertion that § 1225(b)(2)(A) does not apply to him, Petitioner further asserts that
Case 5:26-cv-00141-D Document 10 Filed 03/16/26 Page 1 of 4

2
his continued detention without a bond hearing violates his due process rights. Id. Petitioner
seeks release from custody or, alternatively, a bond hearing pursuant to § 1226(a). Id.
Respondents filed a Response in Opposition to the Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus [Doc. No. 7]. Petitioner did not file a reply, and the time to do so has passed. Thus,
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 v. Holt, CIV-25-1189-D, 2025 WL 3645176, at *4
(W.D. Okla. Dec. 16, 2025). Further, this Court has previously declined to find that refusing
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 decision in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, 166 F.4th 494 (5th Cir.
2026).
Case 5:26-cv-00141-D Document 10 Filed 03/16/26 Page 2 of 4

3
to self-deport or submitting an asylum application constitute “seeking admission” for
purposes of § 1225(b)(2)(A). Cruz-Hernandez v. Noem, CIV-25-1378-D, 2026 WL 18932,
at *1 (W.D. Okla. Jan. 2, 2026); 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 (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 v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281, 306 (2018)) (“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.
2 Given this determination, the Court declines to address Petitioner’s remaining claims at this time.
Case 5:26-cv-00141-D Document 10 Filed 03/16/26 Page 3 of 4

4
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 16 th day of March, 2026.
Case 5:26-cv-00141-D Document 10 Filed 03/16/26 Page 4 of 4