Huang v. Bondi et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
TIANQIANG HUANG,
Petitioner,
v.
PAMELA JO BONDI, et al.,
Respondents.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. CIV-26-227-SLP
O R D E R
Petitioner Tianqiang Huang, 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. 16] (R&R) of United States Magistrate Judge Amanda L.
Maxfield. The Magistrate Judge recommends granting, in part, the Petition. Respondents
have filed an Objection [Doc. No. 17] to which Petitioner responded [Doc. No. 21] 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 the People’s Republic of China, entered the United States on
or about July 11, 2018. 	On or about June 17, 2019, Petitioner filed an application for
asylum. 	On or about August 8, 2019, he was placed into removal proceedings by U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). 	An Immigration Judge (IJ) denied the
Case 5:26-cv-00227-SLP Document 22 Filed 03/30/26 Page 1 of 5

2
asylum application on December 13, 2024, and ordered Petitioner removed to China.
Petitioner appealed this ruling to the BIA on January 8, 2025, and the appeal is pending.
In December 2025, 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. 16] at 3. Petitioner remains detained at Cimarron Correctional
Facility in Cushing, Oklahoma.1
On February 9, 2026, Petitioner filed this action, claiming violations of the
Immigration and Nationality Act, a violation of his due process rights under the Fifth
Amendment to the United States Constitution, and a violation of the Equal Access to
Justice Act (EAJA). R&R [Doc. No. 16] at 4–5; 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 a bond hearing pursuant
to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) or, in the alternative, release from custody.
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
habeas relief and order Respondents to provide Petitioner with an individualized bond
1 See ICE Online Detainee Locator System, at https://locator.ice.gov/odls/#/results (last visited
March 30, 2026).
Case 5:26-cv-00227-SLP Document 22 Filed 03/30/26 Page 2 of 5

3
hearing under § 1226(a) within seven 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 days of the Court’s Order. Finally, the Magistrate Judge recommended
that the Court decline to address Petitioner’s due process claim his claim under the EAJA.2
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 Cimarron 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 or EAJA claims 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-00227-SLP Document 22 Filed 03/30/26 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, 166 F.4th 494 (5th Cir. 2026); Avila v. Bondi, --- F.4th ---, 2026 WL 819258 (8th
Cir. Mar. 25, 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.
16] 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 and EAJA claims are 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-00227-SLP Document 22 Filed 03/30/26 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 30 th day of March, 2026.
Case 5:26-cv-00227-SLP Document 22 Filed 03/30/26 Page 5 of 5