Bekbolot kyzy v. Figueroa et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
GULZINA BEKBOLOT KYZY,
Petitioner,
v.
FRED FIGUERO, et al.,
Respondents.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. CIV-26-129-D
ORDER
Petitioner Gulzina Bekbolot kyzy filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. [Doc. No. 1]. Petitioner is a citizen of Kyrgyzstan who
entered the United States on or about April 9, 2023. Id. at p. 2. Petitioner was detained and
released from custody on or about April 9, 2023. Id. On or about April 21, 2023, Petitioner
filed an application for asylum. [Doc. No. 10-2]. However, Petitioner was re-detained on
January 10, 2026, and has been in the custody of the U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE) since that time. [Doc. No. 1, at p. 3]. She is currently housed at
Diamondback Correctional Facility in Watonga, Oklahoma. Id.
Petitioner’s removal proceedings are ongoing. She is currently detained pursuant to
the mandatory detention provision contained in 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A). In her Petition,
she contends that § 1225(b)(2)(A) does not apply to her because she is not an arriving alien,
as she was residing in the interior of the United States when she was re-detained, and is not
“seeking admission” within the meaning of § 1225(b)(2)(A). [Doc. No. 1]. Because of her
assertion that § 1225(b)(2)(A) does not apply to her, Petitioner further asserts that her
Case 5:26-cv-00129-D Document 14 Filed 03/17/26 Page 1 of 4

2
continued detention without a bond hearing violates her due process rights. Id. Petitioner
seeks release from custody or, alternatively, a bond hearing pursuant to § 1226(a). Id.
The matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Amanda L. Maxfield for
initial proceedings in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and (C). [Doc. No. 5].
Respondents filed a Response in Opposition to the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
[Doc. No. 10], and Petitioner filed a reply [Doc. No. 11].
On February 26, 2026, the magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation
[Doc. No. 12], recommending that the Court grant in part the Petition and order
Respondents to provide Petitioner a bond hearing pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a).
Respondents filed a timely Objection to the Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 13].
Thus, the Court must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or
specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made” and “may
accept, reject or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the
magistrate judge.” See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).
Respondents object to the magistrate judge’s conclusion that § 1226(a) applies to
Petitioner’s detention, and not § 1225(b)(2)(A), as suggested by Respondents. 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)
Case 5:26-cv-00129-D Document 14 Filed 03/17/26 Page 2 of 4

3
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
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 she was detained, Petitioner does not fall into the
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-00129-D Document 14 Filed 03/17/26 Page 3 of 4

4
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 she 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 Report and Recommendation [Doc. No.
12] is ADOPTED, and the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241 [Doc. No. 1] is GRANTED in part.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 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 17 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-00129-D Document 14 Filed 03/17/26 Page 4 of 4