Singh v. Noem et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
ANMOL SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
PAMELA BONDI, et al.,
Respondents.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. CIV-26-234-D
ORDER
Petitioner Anmol Singh 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 October 12, 2018.1 Id. at p. 4, 6. Petitioner was taken into custody, and
subsequently released on or about December 30, 2018. Id. at p. 6. Additionally, Petitioner
filed an application for asylum on or about June 20, 2019. Id. at p. 6. However, Petitioner
was re-detained on or about January 22, 2026, and has been in the custody of the U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) since that time. Id. at p. 14. He is currently
housed at the Cimarron Correctional Facility in Cushing, Oklahoma. Id. at p. 1.
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,
1 The Court notes that the Petitioner alleges to have entered the United States on October
12, 2018, and August 7, 2021. [Doc. No. 1, at p. 6]. Based on Petitioner’s assertion that he
“has resided in the United States continuously for over eight years,” the Court construes
the inclusion of “August 7, 2021” as a scrivener’s error. Id. Regardless, the issue of whether
Petitioner entered the United States on August 7, 2021, or October 12, 2018, does not
change this Court’s ultimate determination.
Case 5:26-cv-00234-D Document 13 Filed 03/17/26 Page 1 of 4

2
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
his continued detention without a bond hearing violates his due process rights. Petitioner
seeks release from custody or, alternatively, a bond hearing pursuant to § 1226(a).
Respondents filed a Response in Opposition to the Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus [Doc. No. 11], and Petitioner filed a reply [Doc. No. 12]. 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”
Case 5:26-cv-00234-D Document 13 Filed 03/17/26 Page 2 of 4

3
for the section to control.2 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 he was re-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 he is therefore entitled to a bond hearing.3 See Hernandez, 2025 WL 2996643, at *3
(citing Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281, 306 (2018)) (“Federal regulations also provide
2 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).
3 Given this determination, the Court declines to address Petitioner’s remaining claims at
this time.
Case 5:26-cv-00234-D Document 13 Filed 03/17/26 Page 3 of 4

4
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 17 th day of March, 2026.
TIMOTHY 	. DeGIUSTI
Chief United States District Judge
Case 5:26-cv-00234-D Document 13 Filed 03/17/26 Page 4 of 4