Perez Hernandez v. Jones et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
DOMINGO PEREZ HERNANDEZ, 	)
)
Petitioner, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Case No. CIV-26-680-D
)
DON JONES, et al., 	)
)
Respondents. 	)
ORDER
Petitioner Domingo Perez Hernandez filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
[Doc. No. 1] pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner is a citizen of Guatemala who entered
the United States in approximately 2001. Petitioner was detained on or around February
17, 2026, and has been in the custody of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
(ICE) since approximately February 27, 2026. He is currently housed at the Kay County
Justice Facility in Newkirk, 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). Petitioner
contends that § 1225(b)(2)(A) does not apply to him because he “entered and was residing
in the United States at the time [he was] apprehended.” [Doc. No. 1, at 11]. Because of his
assertion that § 1225(b)(2)(A) does not apply to him, Petitioner contends 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-00680-D Document 9 Filed 04/23/26 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, “§ 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
18932, at *1 (W.D. Okla. Jan. 2, 2026); Malacidze v. Noem, No. CIV-25-1527-D, 2026 WL
1 On this issue, the Court finds persuasive the analysis provided 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, No. 25-3248, --- F.4th ----, 2026 WL 819258 (8th Cir. Mar. 25, 2026).
Case 5:26-cv-00680-D Document 9 Filed 04/23/26 Page 2 of 4

3
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 [Doc.
No. 1] pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 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-00680-D Document 9 Filed 04/23/26 Page 3 of 4

4
IT IS SO ORDERED this 23 rd day of April, 2026.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 5:26-cv-00680-D Document 9 Filed 04/23/26 Page 4 of 4