Batista Ronda v. Figueroa et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
DANARIS BATISTA RONDA, 	)
)
Petitioner, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Case No. CIV-26-565-J
)
FRED FIGUEROA, et al., 	)
)
Respondents. 	)
ORDER
Petitioner Danaris Batista Ronda, a Cuban national, is currently in the custody of
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). She has filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 seeking release, or in the alternative, a bond hearing [Doc. No. 1].
The matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Chris M. Stephens who issued a Report
and Recommendation [Doc. No. 10] recommending that the Court: (1) grant in part the Petition
by ordering Respondents to provide Petitioner a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within five
business days, at which Respondents bear the burden of proof, or otherwise release Petitioner if
she has not received a lawful bond hearing within that period; (2) require the government to bear
the burden at any bond hearing to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Petitioner is either
a flight risk or a danger to the community to justify continued detention; and (3) order Respondents
to certify compliance by filing a status report within seven business days of the Court’s order.
Respondents filed a timely Objection [Doc. No. 11], triggering de novo review. See Fed. R. Civ.
P. 72(b)(3); Quint v. Vail Resorts, Inc., 89 F.4th 803, 808 (10th Cir. 2023).
Petitioner is a citizen of Cuba who entered the United States on or about March 26, 2022,
without admission or inspection near Eagle Pass, Texas. 	Petitioner alleges ICE placed her into
removal proceedings before the Immigration Court pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1229a through the
Case 5:26-cv-00565-J Document 12 Filed 04/28/26 Page 1 of 3

2
issuance of a Notice to Appear (NTA) and charged her with being inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. §
1182(a)(6)(A)(i) as someone who entered the United States without inspection. On the same day,
ICE released her on her own recognizance. In January 2026, ICE re-arrested Petitioner when she
went to an ICE office to inquire about her immigration proceedings. On January 29, 2026, ICE
issued a subsequent NTA continuing removal proceedings against Petitioner and again charging
her with being inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i). 	Petitioner is currently in ICE
custody and is detained at the Diamondback Correctional Facility.
Respondents object to Judge Stephens’ conclusion that § 1226(a) controls Petitioner’s
detention. Respondents insist that § 1225(b)(2)(A) controls because Petitioner is an applicant for
admission and that section unambiguously requires all applicants for admission to be subject to
mandatory detention. See Obj. at 3-15. Although employing a de novo review, the Court declines
to engage in lengthy analysis here.1 	This Court, and 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).
Unless the Tenth Circuit and/or Supreme Court hold differently, the matter is well settled in this
Court and further discussion is unwarranted.
Respondents also object to Judge Stephens’ conclusion that “at Petitioner’s bond hearing,
the government should bear the burden to prove by clear and convincing evidence that she is either
1 “[N]either 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) nor Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) requires the district court to make any
specific findings; the district court must merely conduct a de novo review of the record.” Garcia
v. City of Albuquerque, 232 F.3d 760, 766 (10th Cir. 2000). Indeed, the circuit court has upheld
district court orders which “merely repeated the language of § 636(b)(1) to indicate its [de novo]
compliance.” In re Griego, 64 F.3d 580, 584 (10th Cir. 1995) (“[I]t is common practice among
district judges in this circuit to make such a statement and adopt the magistrate judges’
recommended dispositions when they find that magistrate judges have dealt with the issues fully
and accurately and that they could add little of value to that analysis.”).
Case 5:26-cv-00565-J Document 12 Filed 04/28/26 Page 2 of 3

3
a flight risk or a danger to the community to justify continued detention.” [Doc. No. 10 at 18].
Upon review of this matter, the Court concludes that it is premature and not fit for adjudication at
this stage. A claim is not ripe for adjudication if it rests upon “‘contingent future events that may
not occur as anticipated, or indeed may not occur at all.’” Thomas v. Union Carbide Agric. Prods.
Co., 473 U.S. 568, 580–581 (1985) (quoting 13A C. Wright, A. Miller, & E. Cooper, Federal
Practice and Procedure § 3532 (1984)). At this point in time, no immigration judge has conducted
a bond hearing in Petitioner’s case, much less allocated the burden of proof or applied the particular
facts of this case to that evidentiary framework. 	Accordingly, the Court declines to issue an
advisory opinion instructing the Immigration Judge to apply a particular burden of proof. 	See
Jalloh v. Garland, No. CIV-22-908-R, 2023 WL 3690252, at *2 (W.D. Okla. May 26, 2023)
(declining to prospectively order Immigration Judge to adhere to specific burden of proof at bond
hearing); Bolus A. D. v. Sec'y of Homeland Sec., 376 F. Supp. 3d 959, 963 (D. Minn. 2019).
Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 10] is ADOPTED IN PART and
Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is GRANTED in so far as it finds Respondents
violated the Immigration and Nationality Act. 	The Court, therefore, ORDERS Respondents to
provide Petitioner with a bond hearing pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within five (5) business days
of the date of this Order, or otherwise release Petitioner if she has not received the hearing within
that period. Respondents shall certify compliance within seven (7) business days of the date of
this Order.
A separate judgment will enter.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 28 th day of April, 2026.
Case 5:26-cv-00565-J Document 12 Filed 04/28/26 Page 3 of 3