Singh v. Anda-Ybarra et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
JASHANPREET SINGH, 	)
)
Petitioner, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Case No. CIV-26-218-J
)
MARY DE ANDA-YBARRA, et al., 	)
)
Respondents. 	)
ORDER
Petitioner Jashanpreet 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 (R&R) 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 ten business days of the Court’s order [Doc. No. 11].
The parties were advised of their right to object to the R&R by April 6, 2026. 	Id. at 18.
Respondents filed a timely Objection [Doc. No. 12]. 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 December 11, 2023,
without admission or parole. 	[Doc. No. 1 ¶ 14, 40]. 	At some point in time, he was detained,
released, and placed in removal proceedings. 	Id. ¶ 40–41. 	In February 2024, Petitioner filed a
Form I-589 asylum application, seeking lawful residence in the United States. Id. ¶ 41. In January
Case 5:26-cv-00218-J Document 13 Filed 04/10/26 Page 1 of 4

2
2026, Petitioner was re-detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) during a
“routine commercial truck inspection.” Id. ¶ 42. Petitioner asserts he was re-detained “without
cause” and has remained in custody without a bond hearing. 	See id. ¶¶ 42–44. 	Respondents
contend a bond hearing is not required because Petitioner was properly re-detained under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1225(b)(2). [Doc. Nos. 8 & 12]. 	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. 12 at 6]. 2 Indeed, the Objection narrowly
“focuses on the R&R’s failure to apply the plain meaning of § 1225(b)(2)(A),” which is an
argument already raised in the Response, addressed in the R&R, and now repeated in the
Objection. See [Doc. No. 8 at 26–30; Doc. No. 11 at 9–14; Doc. No. 12 at 10–14 (quoting large
sections of the Response nearly verbatim)]. 	And, while the R&R addresses Respondent’s
1 Because the Court grants Petitioner relief under § 1226(a), it declines to address his constitutional
claim.
2 All page citations refer to the Court’s CM/ECF pagination.
Case 5:26-cv-00218-J Document 13 Filed 04/10/26 Page 2 of 4

3
argument regarding whether the Court has jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, see [Doc. No. 11 at
3–9], the Objection is silent as to this issue. 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); Horsey v. Rankins,
No. CIV-22-1021-J, 2023 WL 3866569, at *1 (W.D. Okla. June 7, 2023) (finding de novo review
is not warranted as to the portions of the R&R to which no specific objection is made). 3
III. 	Analysis
Having determined that Respondents’ Objection does not trigger de novo review, the Court
reviews the R&R 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 R&R 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.
3 	Respondents also acknowledge this Court’s prior rulings “and understand this case may be
resolved similarly” but submit the Objection “to preserve arguments on appeal that other Courts,”
including the Fifth and Eighth Circuits “have found persuasive.” 	[Doc. No. 12 at 6]; 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-00218-J Document 13 Filed 04/10/26 Page 3 of 4

4
IV. 	Conclusion
For the reasons above, the Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 11] 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 ten business
days of this Order’s date.
A separate judgment will enter.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 10 th day of April, 2026.
Case 5:26-cv-00218-J Document 13 Filed 04/10/26 Page 4 of 4