Rahul v. Noem et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
RAHUL RAHUL, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
v. ) Case No. CIV-26-269-J
)
KRISTI NOEM, et al., )
)
Respondents. )
ORDER
Petitioner Rahul Rahul, a noncitizen from India, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [Doc. No. 1]. The matter was referred to United States Magistrate
Judge Amanda L. Maxfield consistent with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), (C). Judge Maxfield issued
a Report and Recommendation recommending that the Court: (1) grant the Petition in part;
(2) order Respondents to provide Petitioner with a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within
seven days or otherwise release him; and (3) order Respondents to certify compliance by filing a
status report within ten days of the Court’s order [Doc. No. 15]. The parties were advised of their
right to object to the Report and Recommendation by March 19, 2026. Id. at 12. Respondents
filed a timely Objection [Doc. No. 16]. For the reasons discussed below, the Report and
Recommendation is ADOPTED and the Petition is GRANTED to the extent it alleges Petitioner’s
lack of a bond hearing violates federal law.
I. Background
Petitioner entered the United States on April 7, 2023. [Doc. No. 1 ¶ 21]. In 2023, Petitioner
was detained by ICE and placed into removal proceedings. Petitioner alleges he was released
shortly thereafter on an order of release on recognizance under 8 U.S.C. § 1226. Id. ¶ 24. In
September 2023, Petitioner filed a Form I-589 asylum application claiming persecution in his
Case 5:26-cv-00269-J Document 17 Filed 03/20/26 Page 1 of 3

2
home country. Id. ¶ 25. In January 2026, ICE re-detained Petitioner. Id. ¶¶ 14, 22; [Doc. No. 13-
4]. While housed at the Diamondback Correctional Facility in Watonga, Oklahoma, Petitioner
filed his Petition, asserting that his continued detention without a bond hearing violates (1) the
Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), and (2) his Fifth Amendment due process rights.1
II. Standard of Review
Although it was timely filed, Respondents’ Objection does not trigger de novo review. An
objection that merely reiterates arguments previously presented to the magistrate judge, or that
expresses general disagreement with the recommendation, is insufficient to require de novo
review. E.g., Valle v. Jones, No. CIV-25-1161-J, 2025 WL 3488290, at *2 (W.D. Okla. Dec. 4,
2025) (collecting cases); see also Cisneros v. Gomez, No. CIV-21-825-PRW, 2023 WL 2543435,
at *1 (W.D. Okla. Mar. 16, 2023). Here, Respondents concede the Objection “expressly reasserts
. . . arguments set forth in the Response” and that the Objection was “filed to preserve arguments
for appeal.” [Doc. No. 11 at 1]. This does not trigger de novo review. Sanchez-Gilly v. Noem, No.
CIV-26-139-J, 2026 WL 674200 (W.D. Okla. Mar. 10, 2026).
III. Analysis
Having determined that Respondents’ Objection did not trigger de novo review, the Court
reviews Judge Maxfield’s Report and Recommendation only to “confirm that there is no clear error
on the face of the record.” Barnett v. Okla. State Reformatory, No. CIV-25-248-J, 2025 WL
2205827, at *1 (W.D. Okla. Aug. 4, 2025). With that review, the Court ADOPTS the thorough
and well-reasoned Report and Recommendation concluding that Petitioner’s detention without a
bond hearing violates the INA. Even if the Court engaged in de novo review, this Court, and
1 Because the Court grants Petitioner relief under § 1226(a), it declines to address his constitutional
claim.
Case 5:26-cv-00269-J Document 17 Filed 03/20/26 Page 2 of 3

3
indeed most courts in this circuit and nationwide, have repeatedly concluded that § 1226(a)
controls in this situation. See Coreas v. Noem, No. CIV-26-151-J, 2026 WL 541151, at *2 (W.D.
Okla. Feb. 26, 2026) (collecting cases); Singh v. Bondi, No. CIV-26-43-J, 2026 WL 483482, at *2
(W.D. Okla. Feb. 20, 2026). Unless the Tenth Circuit or Supreme Court hold differently, the
matter is well settled in this Court and further discussion is unwarranted.
IV. Conclusion
For the reasons above, the Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 15] is ADOPTED and
Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is GRANTED in so far as it finds Respondents
violated the INA. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Respondents to provide Petitioner with an
individualized bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) or otherwise release Petitioner within seven
days of this order’s date. Respondents shall also certify compliance within ten days of this order’s
date.
A separate judgment will enter.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 20th day of March, 2026.
Case 5:26-cv-00269-J Document 17 Filed 03/20/26 Page 3 of 3