Karimov v. Cerna et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
DOSTON KARIMOV, 	)
)
Petitioner, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Case No. CIV-26-305-PRW
)
SCARLET GRANT, et al., 	)
)
Respondents. 	)
ORDER
Before the Court is Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Dkt. 1) This
matter has been fully briefed and is now ripe for decision. For the reasons that follow, the
Petition (Dkt. 1) is DENIED.
Background
This is a habeas claim, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3).1 Petitioner illegally
entered the United States on or around October 2023, without first being inspected or
admitted.2 Petitioner represents that his residency in the United States has continued
uninterrupted for approximately two-and-a-half years.3 On February 12, 2026, Petitioner
was arrest by ICE and put into removal proceedings pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1229a.4
Respondents have detained Petitioner pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) because he
1 “Challenges to immigration detention are properly brought directly through habeas.”
Soberanes v. Comfort, 388 F.3d 1305, 1310 (10th Cir. 2004).
2 Pet. (Dkt. 1), at 2.
3 Id.
4 Resp. (Dkt. 9), at 2–3.
Case 5:26-cv-00305-PRW Document 12 Filed 04/21/26 Page 1 of 3

2
entered the country without inspection.5 Petitioner, however, believes he is detained
pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), which doesn’t require detention and permits bond when
detention occurs. He requests that he be released.
Analysis
I. 	Petitioner is an “applicant for admission.”
For the reasons given in the Court’s Order in Sosa v. Holt, the Court finds that it has
subject matter jurisdiction.6 Further, the Court finds that, because Petitioner entered the
United States without admission or inspection, he is properly detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C.
§ 1225(b)(2).7
II. 	Petitioner has failed to show a due process violation.
Petitioner has been in ICE custody since February 12, 2026.8 As in Zhang v. Grant,
the Court finds Petitioner’s due process claim is premature.9 A six-month detention period
is presumptively constitutional before the government must release a removable alien who
shows “that there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable
5 Id. at 8.
6 See Sosa v. Holt, et al., Case No. CIV-25-1257-PRW, Dkt. 12, at 3–6 (W.D. Okla. Jan.
6, 2026).
7 See Id. at 6–12 for the Court’s analysis interpreting the meaning of “applicant for
admission.”
8 Pet. (Dkt. 1), at 9.
9 See Zhang v. Grant, et al., Case No. CIV-25-1301-PRW, Dkt. 19, at 6–7 (W.D. Okla.
Feb. 3, 2026).
Case 5:26-cv-00305-PRW Document 12 Filed 04/21/26 Page 2 of 3

3
future[.]”10 Accordingly, Petitioner’s due process claim does not ripen until August 12,
2026.
Conclusion
For these reasons, the Court DENIES the Petition (Dkt.1). A separate judgment will
follow.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 21st day of April 2026.
10 Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 701 (2001).
Case 5:26-cv-00305-PRW Document 12 Filed 04/21/26 Page 3 of 3