Singh Singh v. Anda-Ybarra et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
GURLAL SINGH SINGH, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
v. ) Case No. CIV-26-128-J
)
MARY DE ANDA-YBARRA et al.,1 )
)
Respondents. )
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Petitioner Gurlal Singh Singh, a noncitizen2 and citizen of India, proceeding with
counsel, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his
detention by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). United States District
Judge Bernard M. Jones, II referred this matter to the undersigned magistrate judge in
accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)-(C). The Respondents filed a Response and
Petitioner filed a Reply. (ECF Nos. 10 & 12). For the reasons set forth below, the
undersigned recommends that the Court grant the Petition, in part, and order
Respondents to provide Petitioner a bond hearing pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within
five business days or otherwise to release him if there is no hearing within that time.
1 Markwayne Mullin was confirmed as Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security on
March 23, 2026. He replaces Kristi Noem. Pursuant to Rule 25(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, the officer's successor is automatically substituted as a party.
2
Unless quoting, this Report and Recommendation “uses the term ‘noncitizen’ as equivalent to
the statutory term ‘alien.’”
Nasrallah v. Barr, 590 U.S. 573, 578 n.2 (2020) (citing 8 U.S.C. §
1101(a)(3)).
Case 5:26-cv-00128-J Document 13 Filed 03/26/26 Page 1 of 8

I. BACKGROUND
Petitioner, a citizen of India, entered the United States on or about October 10,
2023, without inspection or admission, and was taken into immigration custody on the
same day. (ECF Nos. 1:11, 10:6). On October 13, 2023, ICE officials placed Petitioner
into removal proceedings before the Immigration Court pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1229a
through a Notice to Appear and charged him with being inadmissible as an alien present
in the United Stated who has not been admitted or paroled.
See ECF No. 10-1. On
September 15, 2025, Petitioner filed an I-589 Application for Asylum and Withholding of
Removal with the Immigration Court. (ECF No. 1-2).
On or about January 28, 2026, Petitioner was apprehended by Respondents in
Oklahoma and transferred to the Diamondback Correctional Facility where he is currently
detained.3
II. PETITIONER’S CLAIMS
Petitioner asserts two counts in his Petition.
• Count I: Violation of the Immigration and Nationality Act
(“INA”). Petitioner alleges his continued detention under §
1225(b)(2) is unlawful and violates the INA because that provision
does not apply to all noncitizens in the United States who are
inadmissible.
• Count II: Violation of Due Process. Petitioner alleges his
continued detention without an individualized bond redetermination
hearing violates his right to due process.
3
See ECF No. 1:12; https://locator.ice.gov/odls/#/results (last visited Mar. 26, 2026).
Case 5:26-cv-00128-J Document 13 Filed 03/26/26 Page 2 of 8

(ECF No. 1:12-13). Petitioner asks the Court to “issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus requiring
that Respondents release Petitioner or, in the alternative, provide Petitioner with a bond
hearing pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within five days.” (ECF No. 1:14). Petitioner also
requests additional declaratory relief as well as an award of attorney fees and costs under
the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”).4 (ECF No. 1:14).
III. STANDARD OF REVIEW
To obtain habeas corpus relief, Petitioner must show that he is “in custody in
violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241(c)(3). “Challenges to immigration detention are properly brought directly through
habeas.”
Soberanes v. Comfort, 388 F.3d 1305, 1310 (10th Cir. 2004) (citing
Zadvydas
v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 687-88 (2001)).
IV. SECTION 1226(a) APPLIES TO PETITIONER’S DETENTION
The two sections of the INA at issue are 8 U.S.C. §§ 1225 and 1226. Section
1225(a)(1) describes an “applicant for admission” as “an alien present in the United States
who has not been admitted or who arrives in the United States.”
Id. § 1225(a)(1) (citation
modified). Under § 1225(b)(2)(A), “in the case of an alien who is an applicant for
admission, if the examining immigration officer determines that an alien seeking
admission is not clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted, the alien shall be
4
To the extent Petitioner may be entitled to EAJA fees and costs as a prevailing party, he must
seek those separately after a final judgment. 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(B). Thus, the Court need
not address this request at this juncture.
Case 5:26-cv-00128-J Document 13 Filed 03/26/26 Page 3 of 8

detained for a proceeding under section 1229a.” If Petitioner is an “applicant for
admission” and “seeking admission” under § 1225(b)(2)(A), he is not entitled to a bond
hearing. On the other hand, Section 1226(a) more generally authorizes detention of a
noncitizen pending removal proceedings and entitles the noncitizen to a bond hearing.
See Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281, 306 (“Federal regulations provide that aliens
detained under § 1226(a) receive bond hearings at the outset of detention.”) (citing 8
C.F.R. §§ 236.1(d)(1), 1236.1(d)(1)).
Petitioner argues he is being held in violation of the INA and § 1225(b)(2) does
not apply to all noncitizens residing in the United States who are inadmissible. (ECF No.
1:12). Petitioner contends § 1226(a) applies: (1) by default to all persons “pending a
decision on whether the [noncitizen] is to be removed from the United States” and (2) to
people charged as being inadmissible, including those who entered without inspection.
(ECF No. 1:10).
Respondents contend Petitioner is an “applicant for admission” and properly
detained under § 1225(b)(2)(A). (ECF No. 10:7-9). Further, Respondents claim: (1) §
1225(b)(2)(A) is not limited to noncitizens “arriving” in the United States, and (2) §
1225(b)(2) is a “catchall provision that applies to all applicants for admission not covered
by § 1225(b)(1).” (ECF No. 10:9-13).
The undersigned has reviewed the statutory text, Congressional intent, legislative
history, and § 1226(a)’s application for the past three decades, as well as numerous
recent cases addressing this exact issue. For the reasons stated below, and adopting the
Case 5:26-cv-00128-J Document 13 Filed 03/26/26 Page 4 of 8

Court’s reasoning in
Lopez v. Corecivic Cimmaron Corr. Facility, No. CIV-25-1175-SLP,
2026 WL 165490, at *3-7 (W.D. Okla. Jan. 21, 2026) and
Vijay v. Holt, No. 26-172-HE,
(W.D. Okla. Mar. 6, 2026), the undersigned recommends the Court grant the Petition in
part to the extent Petitioner seeks a bond hearing under § 1226(a).
First, the INA limits the scope of the terms “applicant for admission” and, in
particular, “seeking admission” in § 1225(b)(2)(A) so that section does not apply to
noncitizens living in the United States when detained. Section 1225(b)(2)(A) “only applies
when a noncitizen ‘applicant for admission’ is actively ‘seeking admission’ into the United
States.”
Valdez v. Holt, No. CIV-25-1250-R, 2025 WL 3709021, at *3 (W.D. Okla. Dec.
22, 2025). If all “applicants for admission” are also “seeking admission,” then §
1225(b)(2)(A)’s inclusion of the phrase “seeking admission” would be redundant and
superfluous.	
Lopez, 2026 WL 165490, at *4. The undersigned best understands
mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A) to apply to arriving noncitizens actively
seeking admission at or near the border or port of entry—not those like Petitioner who
have resided in the United States for years and were not arrested when trying to cross
the border.
In addition, the legislative history and recent amendment of § 1226 indicate that
section applies to noncitizens who previously entered without inspection and were
residing in the United States when apprehended. Notably, after passage of the Illegal
Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, the Department of Justice
explained that “despite being applicants for admission, aliens who are present without
Case 5:26-cv-00128-J Document 13 Filed 03/26/26 Page 5 of 8

having been admitted or paroled . . . will be eligible for bond and bond redetermination.”
Inspection and Expedited Removal of Aliens; Detention and Removal of Aliens; Conduct
of Removal Proceedings; Asylum Procedures, 62 Fed. Reg. 10312, 10323 (Mar. 6, 1997)
(citation modified). Further, Congress’ recent amendment to § 1226 mandating detention
for certain criminal noncitizens renders Respondents’ interpretation of § 1225(b)(2)(A)
superfluous.
Finally, this Court, Chief Judge DeGiusti, Judge Palk, Judge Russell, Judge Heaton,
and myriad district courts have recently applied § 1226(a) to govern detention of
noncitizens like Petitioner.5 This Court has found the plain language, legislative history,
and past immigration practices all support a finding that “Petitioner’s detention is not
governed by §1225(b)(2).”
Lopez, 2026 WL 165490, at *7. The undersigned agrees with
this Court’s reasoning, the majority of Judges in this District, and the great weight of
authority to conclude Petitioner falls within the confines of § 1226(a), and not §
1225(b)(2)(A). This conclusion is also in accord with the Seventh Circuit, which rejected
the statutory interpretation of § 1225(b)(2) as urged by Respondents.
See Castañon-
Nava v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 161 F.4th 1048, 1061 (7th Cir. 2025).
But see
5
See, e.g., Lopez, 2026 WL 165490, at *7;
Ramirez Rojas v. Noem, No. CIV-25-1236-HE, 2026
WL 94641, at *1 (W.D. Okla. Jan. 13, 2026);
Valdez, 2025 WL 3709021, at *3;
Colin v. Holt, CIV-
25-1189-D, 2025 WL 3645176, at *5 (W.D. Okla. Dec. 16, 2025);
Ochoa Maldonado v. Noem,
No. CIV-25-1379-J, 2026 WL 160950 (W.D. Okla. Jan. 21, 2026). Two Judges in the District have
applied § 1225(b)(2)(A).
See Gutierrez Sosa v. Holt, No. CIV-25-1257-PRW, 2026 WL 36344, at
*3 (W.D. Okla. Jan. 6, 2026) (finding “§ 1225 unambiguously applies to” a similarly situated
petitioner);
Alvarado Montoya v. Holt, No. CIV-25-01231-JD, 2025 WL 3733302, at *12 (W.D.
Okla. Dec. 26, 2025) (finding “§ 1225 unambiguously deems [p]etitioner an ‘applicant for
admission’ who is ‘seeking admission’”).
Case 5:26-cv-00128-J Document 13 Filed 03/26/26 Page 6 of 8

Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, No. 25-20496, 2026 WL 323330 (5th Cir. Feb. 6, 2026)
(agreeing with Respondents’ interpretation).
Accordingly, the undersigned recommends the Court apply § 1226(a) to govern
Petitioner’s current detention. The Court should grant the Petition in part and order
Respondents to provide Petitioner with a bond hearing under § 1226(a) before a neutral
IJ within five business days or otherwise release him if he does not have a lawful bond
hearing within that period.
V. PETITIONER’S REMAINING CLAIM
Petitioner also argues his continued detention without a bond hearing violates his
right to due process. (ECF No. 1:13). If the Court grants Petitioner’s requested relief for
a bond hearing under § 1226(a), the undersigned recommends the Court decline to
decide the merits of the due process claim based on his continued detention.
See, e.g.,
Colin v. Holt, CIV-25-1189-D, 2025 WL 3645176, at *6 n.3 (W.D. Okla. Dec. 16, 2025)
(declining to decide the merits of Petitioner’s due process claim when granting a bond
hearing pursuant to § 1226(a)).
VI. RECOMMENDATION AND NOTICE OF RIGHT TO OBJECT
For the foregoing reasons, the undersigned recommends that the Court GRANT
in part the Petition for habeas relief by ordering Respondents to provide Petitioner with
a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within five business days or otherwise release
Petitioner if he has not received a lawful bond hearing within that period. The undersigned
Case 5:26-cv-00128-J Document 13 Filed 03/26/26 Page 7 of 8

further recommends the Court order Respondents to certify compliance by filing a status
report within seven business days of the Court’s order.
The parties are advised of their right to object to this Report and Recommendation.
See 28 U.S.C. § 636. Any objection must be filed not later than April 2, 2026.
See id. §
636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2).6 If a party wishes to respond to the other party’s
objections, such response must be filed not later than April 6, 2026.
See Fed. R. Civ.
P.72(b)(2).The parties are further advised that failure to make timely objection to this
Report and Recommendation waives the right to appellate review of both factual and
legal issues contained herein.
Casanova v. Ulibarri, 595 F.3d 1120, 1123 (10th Cir. 2010).
This Report and Recommendation disposes of all issues and terminates the referral
to the undersigned Magistrate Judge in the captioned matter.
ENTERED on March 26, 2026.
6
Given the expedited nature of these proceedings, the undersigned has reduced the typical
objection time to this Report and Recommendation to seven days.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2)
advisory committee’s note to 1983 addition (noting that rule establishing 14-day response time
“does not extend to habeas corpus petitions, which are covered by the specific rules relating to
proceedings under Sections 2254 and 2255 of Title 28.”);
see also Whitmore v. Parker, 484 F.
App’x 227, 231, 231 n.2 (10th Cir. 2012) (noting that “[t]he Rules Governing § 2254 Cases may
be applied discretionarily to habeas petitions under § 2241” and that “while the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure may be applied in habeas proceedings, they need not be in every instance –
particularly where strict application would undermine the habeas review process”).
Case 5:26-cv-00128-J Document 13 Filed 03/26/26 Page 8 of 8