Chen v. Grant et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
WEI QING CHEN,
Petitioner,
v.
SCARLET GRANT, et al.,
Respondents.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. CIV-26-554-D
ORDER
Petitioner Wei Qing Chen filed a Petition for Habeas Corpus and Complaint for
Declaratory and Injunctive Relief [Doc. No. 1], pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner is
a citizen of China who entered the United States on or about April 17, 2019. On October
20, 2019, Petitioner was released from custody. However, Petitioner was re-detained on or
about March 10, 2026, and he has been in the custody of the U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE) since that time. He is currently housed at the Cimarron Correctional
Facility in Cushing, 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, and 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-00554-D Document 11 Filed 04/08/26 Page 1 of 4

2
Respondents filed a Response in Opposition to Verified Petition for Habeas Corpus
and Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief [Doc. No. 10]. 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
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.
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-00554-D Document 11 Filed 04/08/26 Page 2 of 4

3
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 Habeas Corpus and
Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief [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-00554-D Document 11 Filed 04/08/26 Page 3 of 4

4
IT IS SO ORDERED this 8 th day of April, 2026.
TIMOTHY D. DeGIUSTI
Chief United States District Judge
Case 5:26-cv-00554-D Document 11 Filed 04/08/26 Page 4 of 4