Dia v. De Anda-Ybarra et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
ABDARAHMANE DIA,
Petitioner,
v.
MARY DE ANDA-YBARRA, et al.,
Respondents.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. CIV-26-219-SLP
O R D E R
Petitioner, Abdarahmane Dia, 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. 10] (R&R) of United States Magistrate Judge Amanda L.
Maxfield. The Magistrate Judge recommends granting, in part, the Petition. Respondent
has filed an Objection [Doc. No. 11] and the matter is at issue. The Court reviews de novo
any portion of the R&R to which a specific objection has been made. 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 is a citizen of Senegal. On or around February 23, 2024, he entered the
United States. On February 24, 2024, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)
detained Petitioner and instituted removal proceedings against him pursuant to 8 U.S.C.
§ 1182(a)(6)(A)(i), alleging he was an alien present in the United States who had not been
admitted or paroled. See Doc. No. 8-1 at 1. Petitioner was eventually released from
custody on his own recognizance.
Case 5:26-cv-00219-SLP Document 12 Filed 03/18/26 Page 1 of 4

2
Petitioner was redetained by ICE on or around February 2, 2026 pursuant to 8 U.S.C.
§ 1225(b)(2)(A). Petitioner is detained at Cimarron Correctional Facility in Cushing,
Oklahoma.1 Petitioner has been continuously detained without a bond since his arrest
pursuant to the mandatory detention provision set forth in § 1225(b)(2)(A).
On February 9, 2026, Petitioner filed this action, claiming violations of the
Immigration and Nationality Act and a violation of his due process rights under the Fifth
Amendment to the United States Constitution. 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 release from custody or, in the alternative, a bond
hearing pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a).
The Magistrate Judge issued a thorough and well-reasoned R&R and recommended
that the Court grant habeas relief and order Respondents to provide Petitioner with an
individualized bond 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
claims.
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.
1 See ICE Online Detainee Locator System, at https://locator.ice.gov/odls/#/results (last visited
Feb. 23, 2026).
Case 5:26-cv-00219-SLP Document 12 Filed 03/18/26 Page 2 of 4

3
§ 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,2 in district courts within the Tenth Circuit3
and across the country4 to have addressed the same issues as those raised by Petitioner.5
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, No. 25-20496, 2026 WL 323330 (5th Cir. Feb. 6, 2026). Accordingly, the Court
concludes that § 1226(a) governs Petitioner’s detention, and he is entitled to an
individualized bond hearing.
2 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).
3 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).
4 See, e.g., Lopez, 2026 WL 165490 at *7 (collecting cases concluding that §1226(a) is the
governing statutory framework).
5 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-00219-SLP Document 12 Filed 03/18/26 Page 3 of 4

4
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation [Doc. No.
10] is ADOPTED and the Petition [Doc. No. 1] is GRANTED in PART as follows:
1. Count I of the Petition is GRANTED and Respondents are ORDERED to
provide Petitioner with a bond hearing pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within seven (7)
days of this Order, or otherwise release Petitioner if he has not received a lawful bond
hearing within that period.
2. Count II is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondents shall certify their compliance with
this Order by filing a status report within ten (10) business days of this Order. The status
report shall detail whether Petitioner was released or provided a bond hearing (and the
results of any bond hearing), including the associated dates with either action.
A separate judgment shall be entered.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 18th day of March, 2026.
Case 5:26-cv-00219-SLP Document 12 Filed 03/18/26 Page 4 of 4