Brena Escobedo v. Holt et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
JORGE DAVID BRENA ESCOBEDO, 	)
)
Petitioner, 	)
v. 	) 	Case No. CIV-25-1553-R
)
RUSSELL HOLT, et al., 	)
)
Respondents. 	)
ORDER
Petitioner, a citizen of Mexico, has been residing in the United States since
approximately 2005. In November of 2025, ICE detained Petitioner and the Department of
Homeland Security issued a Notice to Appear charging Petitioner as subject to removal
under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i) [Doc. No. 7-1].
Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241
[Doc. No. 1], claiming violations of the Immigration and Nationality Act and his Fifth
Amendment Due Process rights. Petitioner asserts the mandatory detention provision
pursuant to which he is currently being detained, 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A), does not apply
to noncitizens like him who previously entered the country. This matter was referred to
United States Magistrate Judge Suzanne Mitchell pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)-
(C). Judge Maxfield issued a Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 9] recommending
that the Court partially grant the Petition for habeas relief by ordering Respondents to
provide Petitioner with a bond hearing pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within seven days
or otherwise release Petitioner. Respondents filed a timely Objection to the Report [Doc.
Case 5:25-cv-01553-R Document 11 Filed 04/13/26 Page 1 of 3

2
No. 10]. The Court must now make a de novo determination of the portions of the Report
to which a specific objection was made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED . R. CIV . P. 72(b)(3).
The key question in this case is whether Petitioner is properly detained pursuant
to § 1225(b)(2)(A), which provides for mandatory detention, or whether he must instead
be detained pursuant to § 1226(a), which generally provides for a bond hearing. As
Respondents acknowledge, this Court has previously determined that § 1226(a) governs
the detention of noncitizens, like Petitioner, who were apprehended within the United
States after entering the country without admission or inspection. See Valdez v. Holt, Case
No. CIV-25-1250-R, 2025 WL 3709021, at *1 (W.D. Okla. Dec. 22, 2025); Perez v. Grant,
No. CIV-25-1560-R, 2026 WL 315065, at *1 (W.D. Okla. Feb. 5, 2026); Salomov v. Noem,
No. CIV-26-143-R, 2026 WL 607446, at *1 (W.D. Okla. Mar. 4, 2026).1 Consistent with
these prior decisions, the Court finds Petitioner is subject to detention under § 1226(a),
not § 1225(b)(2). Petitioner is thus entitled to a prompt bond hearing pursuant to § 1226(a).
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 9] and
GRANTS the Petition in part. Respondents are directed to provide Petitioner with a prompt
bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). Because the Court grants relief on statutory
grounds, it declines to reach the remaining claims. If Respondents fail to provide a bond
hearing consistent with § 1226(a), Petitioner may renew his constitutional arguments.
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, 2026 WL 819258 (8th Cir. Mar. 25, 2026).
Case 5:25-cv-01553-R Document 11 Filed 04/13/26 Page 2 of 3

3
IT IS SO ORDERED this 13 th day of April, 2026.
Case 5:25-cv-01553-R Document 11 Filed 04/13/26 Page 3 of 3