Miranda v. Bradford et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
JUAN JOSE NAVAS MIRANDA, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
v. ) Case No. CIV-26-1254-J
)
BRET BRADFORD, et al., )
)
Respondents. )
ORDER
Petitioner Juan Jose Navas Miranda, a Nicaraguan citizen, filed a Petition for Writ of
Habeas challenging his detention with United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement
(ICE). [Doc. No. 1]. The matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Shon T. Erwin
consistent with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), (C). Judge Erwin issued a Report and Recommendation
recommending that the Court: (1) grant the Petition in part and (2) order Respondents to provide
Petitioner with a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within ten days or otherwise release him.
Judge Erwin also recommends that Respondents be ordered to certify compliance within ten
business days. (Rep. & Rec.) [Doc. No. 15]. Respondents filed a timely objection (Obj.) [Doc.
No. 16], triggering de novo review. See Quint v. Vail Resorts, Inc., 89 F.4th 803, 808 (10th Cir.
2023). Petitioner did not object, waiving de novo review. See Casanova v. Ulibarri, 595 F.3d
1120, 1123 (10th Cir. 2010).
For the reasons discussed below, the Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED and the
Petition is GRANTED IN PART to the extent that it alleges Petitioner’s lack of bond hearing
violates federal law.
Case 5:26-cv-01254-J Document 17 Filed 10/16/26 Page 1 of 3

2
I. Background
Petitioner entered the United States in December 2022 and was shortly thereafter detained
but paroled into the United States. In September 2025, ICE re-detained Petitioner and he was
served with a Notice to Appear and placed into removal proceedings. Petitioner asserts that his
continued detention without a bond hearing violates the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA),
the “Accardi doctrine,” the Administrate Procedures Act (APA), and his Fifth Amendment due
process rights.1
II. Report and Recommendation
Upon review, Judge Erwin concluded that Petitioner is not seeking admission as
contemplated under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) and thus 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) controls his detention.
As such, Petitioner’s continued detention without a bond hearing violates the INA. See Rep. &
Rec. at 4-7.
III. Analysis
Respondents object to Judge Erwin’s conclusion that § 1226(a) controls Petitioner’s
detention arguing that when his parole expired, he returned to his status as “an ‘arriving alien’”
under 8 U.S.C. 1225(b)(1) and is therefore subject to mandatory detention. [Doc. No. 16 at 2].
But this Court and others have rejected this theory. See Zhakhonov v. Grant, No. CIV-26-350-J,
2026 WL 1865418, at *2 (W.D. Okla. June 29, 2026) (“Upon review, the Court concludes that
Petitioner’s termination of humanitarian parole did not automatically return him to mandatory
detention under § 1225(b)(1).”); Kumar v. Johnson, No. CIV-26-352-J, 2026 WL 937560 (W.D.
Okla. Apr. 7, 2026) (holding that the expiration of parole does not, by itself, revert Petitioner’s
1 Because the Court grants Petitioner relief on his INA claim, it declines to address his remaining
claims.
Case 5:26-cv-01254-J Document 17 Filed 10/16/26 Page 2 of 3

3
status back to that of an arriving alien); Aitiev v. Gantt, No. CIV-26-997-R, 2026 WL 2125893, at
*2 (W.D. Okla. July 23, 2026) (finding a noncitizen detained after revocation of § 1182(d)(5)
humanitarian parole is held under § 1226(a), not § 1225(b)(1)); Ochilov v. Grant, No. CIV-26-526-
R, 2026 WL 1896139, at *2 (W.D. Okla. July 1, 2026) (same); Drozdov v. Lyons, No. CIV-26-365-
SLP, 2026 WL 1470929, at *2 (W.D. Okla. May 26, 2026) (same). Until the Tenth Circuit or
Supreme Court holds otherwise,2 the matter is well settled in this Court and further discussion is
unwarranted.
Having found § 1225(b)(2)(A) inapplicable to Petitioner, the Court agrees with Judge
Erwin that § 1226(a) controls his detention and thus a bond hearing is required under the INA. See
Zhakhonov, 2026 WL 1865418, at *3.
IV. Conclusion
For the reasons above, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 15]
on de novo review and GRANTS IN PART Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in so
far as it finds Respondents violated the INA. The Court ORDERS Respondents to provide
Petitioner with a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within ten days or otherwise release
Petitioner. Respondents shall certify compliance within ten business days of this Order’s date.
A separate judgment will enter.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 16th day of October, 2026.
2 The Court recognizes that some courts have reached a contrary conclusion, see, e.g.,
Kvaratskhelia v. Blanche, et al., No. CIV-26-1673-JD (W.D. Okla. Sept. 29, 2026), but respectfully
declines to adopt that approach.
Case 5:26-cv-01254-J Document 17 Filed 10/16/26 Page 3 of 3