Li v. Grant et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
ZHIDONG LI, a/k/a Zhigong Li,
Petitioner,
-vs-
SCARLET GRANT, et al.,
Respondents.
)
)
)
)
)
) 	NO. CIV-25-1426-HE
)
)
)
)
ORDER
Petitioner Zhidong Li, a/k/a Zhigong Li, a Chinese citizen, was apprehended by
United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers. 1 He is currently
detained at the Cimarron Correctional Facility in Cushing, Oklahoma, pursuant to 8 U.S.C.
§ 1225(b)(2)(A).
Petitioner entered the United States on or about January 15, 2019. 	A notice to
appear, dated February 21, 2019, was issued by the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS), charging that petitioner was subject to removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i)
and 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(7)(i)(I). 	The notice indicated that an asylum officer found
petitioner had demonstrated a credible fear of persecution or torture. A warrant for arrest
of alien and a notice of custody determination, dated February 27, 2019, was also issued.
1 Petitioner alleges, upon information and belief, that he was detained by ICE in Oklahoma City
on November 8, 2025, after a traffic stop. According to respondents, petitioner was placed
under administrative arrest on October 10, 2025 after the execution of a state search warrant at
an illegal marijuana grow site in Oklahoma.
Case 5:25-cv-01426-HE Document 11 Filed 01/20/26 Page 1 of 4

2
The notice stated that petitioner would be detained by DHS pending removal proceedings.
Petitioner requested a review of the custody determination, and on March 25, 2019, an
immigration judge granted petitioner release on bond. Several months later, petitioner filed
an application for asylum.
After petitioner was again detained, he requested a custody redetermination hearing
to determine his bond eligibility. On November 11, 2025, the immigration judge denied
the bond request, finding “no jurisdiction.” Doc. # 1-5.
On November 26, 2025, petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under
28 U.S.C. § 2241, claiming violations of the Immigration and Nationality Act, various
regulations, the Fifth Amendment due process clause, principles of estoppel. 	Petitioner
requested release from custody, or alternatively, a bond hearing pursuant to 8 U.S.C.
§ 1226(a) or the due process clause. 	The habeas petition was referred to United States
Magistrate Judge Amanda L. Maxfield for initial proceedings consistent with 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(B) and (C). 	As ordered, respondents filed a response to the petition and
petitioner filed a reply. 	On December 31, 2025, Judge Maxfield issued a Report and
Recommendation, recommending the court grant the habeas petition in part. Specifically,
she 	recommended 	that 	the 	court 	order 	respondents 	to 	provide 	petitioner 	with 	an
individualized bond hearing under § 1226(a) within seven days or otherwise release
petitioner if he has not received a lawful bond hearing within that period. 	She further
recommended that the court order respondents to certify compliance by filing a status
report within ten days of the court’s order.
Case 5:25-cv-01426-HE Document 11 Filed 01/20/26 Page 2 of 4

3
Respondents have timely objected to the Report and Recommendation. They object
to 	Judge 	Maxfield’s 	recommendation 	that 	8 	U.S.C. 	§ 1226(a) 	governs 	petitioner’s
detention rather than 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A).
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), the court has conducted a de novo review of the
matter. 	Having done so, the court concurs with the recommended ruling.2 	The court
agrees that § 1226(a), not § 1225(b)(2)(A), governs petitioner’s detention. 	Although the
issue involves some close questions of statutory interpretation, the court joins those courts
in this district which have rejected respondents’ reading of § 1225. See Valdez v. Holt,
Case No. CIV-25-1250-R, 2025 WL 3709021, at *1 (W.D. Okla. Dec. 22, 2025); Colin v.
Holt, Case No. CIV-25-1189-D, 2025 WL 3645176, at *2 (W.D. Okla. Dec. 16, 2025); and
Escarcega v. Olson, Case No. CIV-25-1129-J, 2025 WL 3243438, at *1 (W.D. Okla. Nov.
20, 2025). 	Id.3 That reading was also rejected by the Seventh Circuit, the only court of
appeals to have addressed the issue to date. 	See Castañon-Nava v. U.S. Department of
Homeland Security, 161 F.4 th 1048, 1060-62 (7 th Cir. 2025). The court additionally agrees
with Judge Maxfield that § 1225(b)(2)(A) does not apply even though petitioner filed an
application for asylum.
2 Although respondents have not objected to Judge Maxfield’s recommendation that the court
has jurisdiction to consider the petition, the court nonetheless substantially agrees with her
analysis.
3 But see, Gutierrez Sosa v. Holt, Case No. CIV-25-1257-PRW, 2026 WL 36344, at **3-5 (W.D.
Okla. Jan. 6, 2026); Montoya v. Holt, Case No. CIV-25-1231-JD, 2025 WL 3733302, at **5-12
(W.D. Okla. Dec. 26, 2025) (examining § 1225 and § 1226 and concluding petitioner properly
detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(B)).
Case 5:25-cv-01426-HE Document 11 Filed 01/20/26 Page 3 of 4

4
Because § 1226(a) governs petitioner’s detention, the court concludes that he is
entitled to an individualized bond hearing, as recommended by Judge Maxfield. 4
Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation [Doc. #10] is ADOPTED. 	The
petition for writ of habeas corpus [Doc. #1] is GRANTED in part. 	Respondents are
ORDERED to provide petitioner with a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within
seven (7) business days or otherwise release petitioner if he has not received a lawful bond
hearing within that period. Respondents are further ORDERED to certify compliance by
filing a status report within ten (10) business days of the court’s order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 20th day of January, 2026.
4 In light of the court’s ruling, the court agrees with Judge Maxfield’s recommendation to
decline to decide the merits of petitioner’s due process claim.
Case 5:25-cv-01426-HE Document 11 Filed 01/20/26 Page 4 of 4