Pineda Matozo v. Figueroa et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
JOSUE PINEDA MATOZO,
Petitioner,
v.
FRED FIGUEROA, et al.,
Respondents.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. CIV-26-635-D
ORDER
Petitioner Josue Pineda Matozo filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [Doc. No. 1]. Petitioner is a citizen of El Salvador who entered the
United States in 2022. Petitioner was detained on October 7, 2025, and has been in the
custody of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) since that time. He is
currently housed at the Diamondback Correctional Facility in Watonga, Oklahoma.
Petitioner’s removal proceedings are ongoing. He is currently detained pursuant to
the mandatory detention provision contained in 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A). In his Petition,
Petitioner contends that § 1225(b)(2)(A) does not apply to him because he is not an arriving
alien, as he was residing in the interior of the United States when he was detained, and is
not “seeking admission” within the meaning of § 1225(b)(2)(A). [Doc. No. 1]. Because of
his assertion that § 1225(b)(2)(A) does not apply to him, Petitioner further asserts that he
is being held in violation of the Immigration and Naturalization Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101 et
seq. (INA). Petitioner seeks release from custody or, alternatively, a bond hearing pursuant
to § 1226(a).
Case 5:26-cv-00635-D Document 9 Filed 04/29/26 Page 1 of 4

2
Respondents filed a Response in Opposition to the Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus [Doc. No. 7], and Petitioner filed a reply [Doc. No. 8]. The matter is fully briefed
and at issue.
Respondents assert that § 1225(b)(2)(A) applies to Petitioner’s detention, and not §
1226(a). Generally, Ҥ 1225 mandates detention without the opportunity for a bond hearing
for the noncitizens to whom it applies.” Hernandez v. Baltazar, No. 1:25-cv-03094-CNS,
2025 WL 2996643, at *3 (D. Colo. Oct. 24, 2025) (citation omitted). In comparison, § 1226
provides the noncitizen with the opportunity for a bond hearing. Id.; see also Aranda v.
Olson, No. 4:25-cv-156-GNS, 2025 WL 3499061, at *4 (W.D. Ky. Dec. 5, 2025) (“Overall,
Section 1226(a) provides for a discretionary authority requiring an individualized bond
determination before a noncitizen may be taken into custody.”) (quotation and citation
omitted).
As Respondents acknowledge, this Court has previously construed § 1225(b)(2)(A)
as unambiguously requiring that an “applicant for admission” also be “seeking admission”
for the section to control.1 See Colin v. Holt, No. CIV-25-1189-D, 2025 WL 3645176, at *4
(W.D. Okla. Dec. 16, 2025). Further, this Court has previously declined to find that refusing
to self-deport or submitting an asylum application constitute “seeking admission” for
purposes of § 1225(b)(2)(A). Cruz-Hernandez v. Noem, No. CIV-25-1378-D, 2026 WL
1 On this issue, the Court finds persuasive the analysis provided by the Second Circuit in Cunha v.
Freden, No. 25-3141-pr (2d. Cir. Apr. 28, 2026) and by the Seventh Circuit in Castañon-Nava v.
U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 161 F.4th 1048 (7th Cir. 2025). The Court also acknowledges the
contrary 2-1 decisions in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, 166 F.4th 494 (5th Cir. 2026) and Avila v.
Bondi, 170 F.4th 1128 (8th Cir. 2026).
Case 5:26-cv-00635-D Document 9 Filed 04/29/26 Page 2 of 4

3
18932, at *1 (W.D. Okla. Jan. 2, 2026); Malacidze v. Noem, No. CIV-25-1527-D, 2026 WL
227155, at *3 (W.D. Okla. Jan. 28, 2026); see also Li v. Grant, No. CIV-25-1426-HE, 2026
WL 147438, at *1 (W.D. Okla. Jan. 20, 2026) (“The court additionally agrees with Judge
Maxfield that § 1225(b)(2)(A) does not apply even though petitioner filed an application
for asylum.”); Toledo Santos v. Grant, No. CIV-25-1433-SLP, 2026 WL 184287, at *1-2
(W.D. Okla. Jan. 23, 2026) (ordering the respondents to provide the petitioner a bond
hearing under § 1226(a) where the petitioner had been released on his own recognizance
and later applied for asylum).
In this case, because Petitioner has been residing in the United States for years and
was present in the country when he was detained, Petitioner does not fall into the mandatory
detention provision of § 1225(b)(2)(A). See Colin, 2025 WL 3645176, at *5; Malacidze,
2026 WL 227155, at *3. Accordingly, § 1226(a) controls Petitioner’s detention, and
Petitioner is therefore entitled to a bond hearing.2 See Hernandez, 2025 WL 2996643, at
*3 (citing Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281, 306 (2018)) (“Federal regulations also
provide that noncitizens detained pursuant to § 1226(a) are entitled to individualized bond
hearings.”).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [Doc. No. 1] is GRANTED in part as set forth herein.
Respondents shall provide Petitioner with a prompt bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a),
or release Petitioner. A separate judgment shall be entered.
2 Given this determination, the Court declines to address Petitioner’s remaining claims at this time.
Case 5:26-cv-00635-D Document 9 Filed 04/29/26 Page 3 of 4

4
IT IS SO ORDERED this 29 th day of April, 2026.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 5:26-cv-00635-D Document 9 Filed 04/29/26 Page 4 of 4