Khasanov v. Grant et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
BEKZOD MUMINDJONOVICH
KHASANOV,
Petitioner,
v.
ROBERT CERNA, et al.,
Respondents.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. CIV-26-748-D
ORDER
Petitioner Bekzod Mumindjonovich Khasanov filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [Doc. No. 1]. Petitioner is a citizen of Uzbekistan who
entered the United States on or about September 25, 2023. On September 27, 2023,
Petitioner was released from custody, and he submitted an asylum application on January
25, 2024.
Petitioner was re-detained by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)
on or about March 31, 2026, and has been in ICE custody since that time. Petitioner’s
removal proceedings are ongoing. Petitioner is currently detained at the Cimarron
Correctional Facility in Cushing, Oklahoma.
Petitioner 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 was living in the United States at the
time of his re-detention, and his detention should instead be governed by § 1226. Because
of his assertion that § 1225(b)(2)(A) does not apply to him, Petitioner contends he is being
Case 5:26-cv-00748-D Document 8 Filed 04/29/26 Page 1 of 4

2
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).
Respondents filed a Response in Opposition to Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [Doc. No. 7]. 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, 2025 WL 3645176, at *4. Further, this Court has
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-00748-D Document 8 Filed 04/29/26 Page 2 of 4

3
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, 2026
WL 18932, at *1; 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, 583 U.S. at 306) (“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
Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [Doc. No. 1] is GRANTED in part as set forth herein.
2 Given this determination, the Court declines to address Petitioner’s remaining claims at this time.
Case 5:26-cv-00748-D Document 8 Filed 04/29/26 Page 3 of 4

4
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.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Emergency Motion for Temporary
Restraining Order and Expedited Relief to Prevent Transfer [Doc. No. 4] is DENIED as
MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 29 th day of April, 2026.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 5:26-cv-00748-D Document 8 Filed 04/29/26 Page 4 of 4