Singh Singh v. Anda-Ybarra et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
GURLAL SINGH SINGH, 	)
)
Petitioner, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Case No. CIV-26-128-J
)
MARY DE ANDA-YBARRA, et al., 	)
)
Respondents. 	)
ORDER
Petitioner Gurlal Singh Singh, a noncitizen from India, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [Doc. No. 1]. The matter was referred to United States
Magistrate Judge Shon T. Erwin consistent with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), (C). Judge Erwin
issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the Court: (1) grant the Petition in part;
(2) order Respondents to provide Petitioner with a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within
five business days or otherwise release him; and (3) order Respondents to certify compliance by
filing a status report within seven business days of the Court’s order [Doc. No. 13]. The parties
were advised of their right to object to the Report and Recommendation by April 2, 2026. Id. at
8. Respondents filed a timely Objection [Doc. No. 14]. For the reasons discussed below, the
Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED and the Petition is GRANTED to the extent it alleges
Petitioner’s lack of a bond hearing violates federal law.
I. Background
Petitioner is a citizen of India who entered the United States on October 10, 2023, without
admission or parole. [Doc. No. 1 ¶ 41; Doc. No. 10 at 6]. That same day, he was examined by
immigration officers, placed in removal proceedings, and released. [Doc. No. 1 ¶ 41]. Petitioner
filed a Form I-589 asylum application in January 2024 and an updated I-589 asylum application
Case 5:26-cv-00128-J Document 15 Filed 04/07/26 Page 1 of 4

2
in September 2024, seeking lawful residence in the United States. Id. ¶ 42; [Doc. No. 10 at 6]. In
January 2026, Petitioner was re-detained by the Department of Homeland Security, and he has
remained in custody without a bond hearing. See [Doc. No. 1 ¶ 43]. Respondents contend a bond
hearing is not required because Petitioner was properly re-detained under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1225(b)(2). [Doc. Nos. 10 & 14]. While housed at the Diamondback Correctional Facility in
Watonga, Oklahoma, Petitioner filed his Petition, asserting that his continued detention without a
bond hearing violates (1) the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), and (2) his Fifth Amendment
due process rights.1
II. Standard of Review
Although it was timely filed, Respondents’ Objection does not trigger de novo review. An
objection that merely reiterates arguments previously presented to the magistrate judge, or that
expresses general disagreement with the recommendation, is insufficient to require de novo
review. E.g., Valle v. Jones, No. CIV-25-1161-J, 2025 WL 3488290, at *2 (W.D. Okla. Dec. 4,
2025) (collecting cases); see also Cisneros v. Gomez, No. CIV-21-825-PRW, 2023 WL 2543435,
at *1 (W.D. Okla. Mar. 16, 2023). Here, Respondents concede the Objection “expressly reasserts
. . . arguments set forth in the Response.” [Doc. No. 14 at 1]. This does not trigger de novo review.
Sanchez-Gilly v. Noem, No. CIV-26-139-J, 2026 WL 674200 (W.D. Okla. Mar. 10, 2026).2
1 Because the Court grants Petitioner relief under § 1226(a), it declines to address his constitutional
claim.
2 Respondents also “acknowledge this Court’s prior rulings” but submit the Objection “for the
Court to consider . . . recent appellate decisions” from the Fifth and Eighth Circuits. [Doc. No. 14
at 1–2]; see Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, 166 F.4th 494 (5th Cir. 2026); Avila v. Bondi, No. 25-
3248, 2026 WL 819258 (8th Cir. Mar. 25, 2026). But the Court has previously acknowledged
those cases and concluded they do not disturb its analysis or compel a different conclusion. See
Damian v. Jones, No. CIV-25-1561-J, 2026 WL 446295, at *1 (W.D. Okla. Feb. 17, 2026); Singh
v. Grant, No. CIV-26-55-J, 2026 WL 915691, at *1 (W.D. Okla. Apr. 3, 2026).
Case 5:26-cv-00128-J Document 15 Filed 04/07/26 Page 2 of 4

3
III. Analysis
Having determined that Respondents’ Objection does not trigger de novo review, the Court
reviews Judge Erwin’s Report and Recommendation only to “confirm that there is no clear error
on the face of the record.” Barnett v. Okla. State Reformatory, No. CIV-25-248-J, 2025 WL
2205827, at *1 (W.D. Okla. Aug. 4, 2025). With that review, the Court ADOPTS the thorough
and well-reasoned Report and Recommendation concluding that Petitioner’s detention without a
bond hearing violates the INA. Even if the Court engaged in de novo review, this Court, and
indeed most courts in this circuit and nationwide, have repeatedly concluded that § 1226(a)
controls in this situation. See Coreas v. Noem, No. CIV-26-151-J, 2026 WL 541151, at *2 (W.D.
Okla. Feb. 26, 2026) (collecting cases); Singh v. Bondi, No. CIV-26-43-J, 2026 WL 483482, at *2
(W.D. Okla. Feb. 20, 2026). Unless the Tenth Circuit or Supreme Court hold differently, the
matter is well settled in this Court and further discussion is unwarranted.
IV. Conclusion
For the reasons above, the Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 13] is ADOPTED and
Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is GRANTED in so far as it finds Respondents
violated the INA. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Respondents to provide Petitioner with an
individualized bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) or otherwise release Petitioner within five
business days of this Order’s date. Respondents shall also certify compliance within seven
business days of this Order’s date.
A separate judgment will enter.
Case 5:26-cv-00128-J Document 15 Filed 04/07/26 Page 3 of 4

4
IT IS SO ORDERED this 7th day of April, 2026.
Case 5:26-cv-00128-J Document 15 Filed 04/07/26 Page 4 of 4