Amin v. Noem et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
SHUEB ALI AMIN,
Petitioner,
v.
MARKWAYNE MULLIN1 et al.,
Respondents.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. CIV-26-328-R
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Petitioner Shueb Ali Amin, a noncitizen2, seeks a writ of habeas corpus
under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Doc. 2, at 4. United States District Judge David L.
Russell referred the case to the undersigned Magistrate Judge for initial
proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), (C). Doc. 18.3 The Government
1 	Markwayne Mullin is now the Secretary of the Department of Homeland
Security 	(DHS). 	https://www.dhs.gov/news/2026/03/24/us-senate-confirms-
markwayne-mullin-secretary-department-homeland-security 	(last 	visited
April 17, 2026). The Court substitutes Markwayne Mullin as a Respondent in
this matter. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d).
2 	This 	Report 	and 	Recommendation 	“uses 	the 	term 	‘noncitizen’ 	as
equivalent to the statutory term ‘alien.’” Nasrallah v. Barr, 590 U.S. 573, 578
n.2 (2020) (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(3)).
3 	Citations to a court document are to its electronic case filing designation
and pagination. Except for capitalization, quotations are verbatim unless
otherwise indicated.
Case 5:26-cv-00328-R Document 26 Filed 04/21/26 Page 1 of 7

2
responded to Petitioner’s habeas petition, Doc. 23, and Petitioner replied, Doc.
25. So the matter is at issue.
For the reasons below, the undersigned recommends the Court grant in
part and deny in part Petitioner’s habeas petition.
I. 	Factual background and Petitioner’s claims.
Petitioner, a Somali citizen entered the United States on or about
December 8, 2022. Doc. 2, at 2, 4. On December 14, 2022, DHS released him on
an “Order of Release on Recognizance,” issued a notice to appear, and placed
him in full removal proceedings under 8 U.S.C. § 1229a. Id. at 2 & Atts. 1, 2.
He sought asylum on April 17, 2023. Id. Att. 3. He has been legally working
and living in Minnesota while on release. Id. at 2, 5. He alleges Respondents
detained him on January 12, 2026 “for no apparent lawful reason.” Id. at 13.
On 	January 	9, 	2026, 	the 	Oklahoma 	Highway 	Patrol 	detained 	and
arrested 	Petitioner 	during 	a 	commercial 	vehicle 	inspection 	in 	Sequoyah,
Oklahoma. Doc. 23, Att. 1, at 2. Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE)
confirmed Petitioner’s immigration status and arrested Petitioner on January
12, 2026. Doc. 23, at 17. On February 4, 2026, an Immigration Judge (IJ)
denied Petitioner’s request for a “custody redetermination” finding the court
had no jurisdiction under Matter of Yajure Hurtado, 29 I&N Dec. 216 (BIA
Case 5:26-cv-00328-R Document 26 Filed 04/21/26 Page 2 of 7

3
2025). Doc. 23, Att. 3. “In the alternative, and after hearing and considering
the totality of evidence,” the IJ “denie[d] bond based on its finding that
[Petitioner] present[ed] a flight risk.” Id.
Petitioner challenges his detention under the Administrative Procedure
Act (APA), the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), and the Due Process
Clause 	of 	the 	Fifth 	Amendment. 	See 	Doc. 	2, 	at 	21-23 	(citing 	8 	U.S.C.
§§ 1225(b)(2) & 1226(a), (b); 8 C.F.R. § 1236.1(c)(9)). He asks the Court to
declare his detention without an individualized determination unlawful; issue
a writ of habeas corpus ordering Respondents to release him immediately, or
in the alternative hold a prompt bond hearing; issue a show cause order as to
why relief should not be grated within three days, prohibit his transfer from
this District without Court approval;4 and award attorney’s fees and costs
under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412. Id. at 23-24.
II. 	Standard of review.
An application for a writ of habeas corpus “is an attack by a person in
custody upon the legality of that custody, and . . . the traditional function of
the writ is to secure release from illegal custody.” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S.
4 	The 	Court 	addressed 	the 	latter 	two 	requests 	when 	it 	directed
Respondents to respond to the petition. See Doc. 20.
Case 5:26-cv-00328-R Document 26 Filed 04/21/26 Page 3 of 7

4
475, 484 (1973). Habeas corpus relief is warranted only if the petitioner “is in
custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United
States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). “Challenges to immigration detention are
properly brought directly through habeas.” Soberanes v. Comfort, 388 F.3d
1305, 1310 (10th Cir. 2004) (citing Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 687-88
(2001)).
III. 	Discussion.
Petitioner asserts his detention is governed by § 1226(a), so he is legally
entitled to a bond redetermination hearing. Doc. 2, at 3-4, 13-14, 20-22; see also
Doc. 25, at 14 (“[Section] 1226(a) controls Petitioner’s detention, and Petitioner
is therefore entitled to a bond hearing.”). Respondents contend that “Petitioner
is an applicant for admission” covered by the mandatory detention provision in
§ 1225. Doc, 23, at 16, 22.5
This Court has compared §§ 1225 and 1226 and decided noncitizens like
Petitioner are entitled to a bond hearing under § 1226. See, e.g., Kumar v. De
5 	Respondents do not assert a lack of jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. §1252(g),
as they have in other cases in this Court. And this Court has determined that
a petitioner’s challenge to the legal question of whether he is subject to
mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A) does not “fall within the narrow
jurisdictional bar stated in 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g).” Valdez v. Holt, No. CIV-25-
1250-R, 2025 WL 3709021, at *1 (W.D. Okla. Dec. 22, 2025).
Case 5:26-cv-00328-R Document 26 Filed 04/21/26 Page 4 of 7

5
Anda-Ybarra, No. CIV-26-164-R, 2026 WL 753944, at *2 (W.D. Okla. Mar. 17,
2026) 	(stating 	“that 	§ 	1226(a) 	governs 	the 	detention 	of 	noncitizens, 	like
Petitioner, that were apprehended within the United States after entering the
country without admission or inspection”). The Court should reach the same
result in this case. But, because the government afforded Petitioner a bond
redetermination hearing, see Doc. 23, Att. 3, the Court should deny any further
relief.
When 	a 	noncitizen 	is 	detained 	under 	§ 	1226(a), 	“the
Attorney General may exercise his discretion to either detain or
release an alien on bond or conditional parole.” Mwangi v. Terry,
465 F. App’x 784, 786 (10th Cir. 2012). However, “the Attorney
General’s exercise of discretion is not subject to judicial review.”
Id. (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1226(e)). Thus, a district court has no
jurisdiction to consider a habeas petitioner’s challenge to the
decision to either grant or deny bond. Id. See also Valeriano v.
Soto, No. CV 25-16100 (MAS), 2026 WL 63710, at *2 (D.N.J. Jan.
8, 2026) (“Where an immigration judge makes a ruling as to
granting or denying bond under § 1226(a), . . . the Court has no
jurisdiction to second guess or reconsider the immigration judge’s
decision.”); Perez v. Holt, No. CIV-25-1151-SLP, 2026 WL 597126,
at *6 (W.D. Okla. Mar. 3, 2026) (“Thus, the Court finds that the
IJ 	relied 	on 	evidence 	in 	the 	record 	to 	make 	a 	discretionary
decision 	to 	deny 	Petitioner 	bond; 	therefore, 	this 	Court 	lacks
subject matter jurisdiction to review that decision.”).
Kumar, 2026 WL 753944, at *2.
Petitioner maintains he “has not received a bond hearing.” Doc. 25, at
17. But the record shows he did: the IJ denied Petitioner’s bond request, first
Case 5:26-cv-00328-R Document 26 Filed 04/21/26 Page 5 of 7

6
determining he lacked jurisdiction to hold a hearing, and in the alternative,
finding Petitioner presented a “flight risk.” Doc. 23, Att. 3. Petitioner does not
challenge the constitutional adequacy of his bond hearing, which he may do
before this Court. And “merely because [the IJ’s decision] was handed down on
an in-the-alternative basis,” does not render it unlawful. Kumar, 2026 WL
753944, at *2. Without more, this Court cannot review this claim.
Because this Court “lacks jurisdiction to reconsider the IJ’s discretionary
decision to deny bond,” it should “not order any further relief at this time.” Id.
IV. 	Recommendation and notice of right to object.
For the reasons above, the undersigned recommends the Court grant the
petition in part as to Ground II and deny Petitioner’s remaining requests for
habeas corpus relief. See id. (“[T]he Court grants the Petition in part as to
Count I, and finds that Petitioner is subject to detention under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1226(a) and may not be denied a bond redetermination hearing solely on the
basis that he is detained under § 1225(b)(2)(A). However, because Petitioner
has received a bond determination hearing, his remaining claims are dismissed
and the Court will not order any further relief at this time.”).
The undersigned advises the parties of their right to file an objection to
this Report and Recommendation with the Clerk of this Court by May 5, 2026,
Case 5:26-cv-00328-R Document 26 Filed 04/21/26 Page 6 of 7

7
in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72. The
undersigned further advises the parties that failure to make timely objections
to this Report and Recommendation waives the right to appellate review of
both factual and legal questions contained herein. Moore v. United States, 950
F.2d 656, 659 (10th Cir. 1991). This Report and Recommendation disposes of
the issues referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge in the captioned
matter.
ENTERED this 21st day of April, 2026.
Case 5:26-cv-00328-R Document 26 Filed 04/21/26 Page 7 of 7