Alejandro Antonio Rodriguez Hernandez v. Scarlet Grant, Warden, et al.

Case No. CIV-25-1525-SLP (W.D. Okla. Jan. 7, 2026) (Report and Recommendation) · United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma · January 7, 2026 · No. CIV-25-1525-SLP

Summary

This Report and Recommendation addresses a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition challenging the detention of a Mexican national by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The magistrate judge concludes that the district court has jurisdiction and recommends finding that 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), rather than § 1225(b)(2)(A), governs the petitioner’s detention because he had entered and resided in the United States before being apprehended. The recommendation is to grant the petition in part and require respondents to provide a bond hearing within five business days or release the petitioner if no hearing occurs.

Holdings

  1. The INA's jurisdictional provisions, including 8 U.S.C. §§ 1252(a)(5), 1252(b)(9), and 1252(g), do not bar a district court from considering a habeas challenge directed at the legality of detention rather than at the commencement, adjudication, or execution of a removal order.
  2. For a noncitizen who entered the United States years earlier and was arrested while residing in the country, 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), rather than § 1225(b)(2)(A), governs detention.
  3. Because § 1226(a) governs Petitioner's detention, he is entitled to a prompt individualized bond hearing before a neutral immigration judge.
  4. The court should decline to decide the merits of Petitioner's due process claim because the recommended statutory relief provided the requested bond hearing.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the INA provisions governing judicial review of removal proceedings deprived the district court of jurisdiction over Petitioner's habeas challenge to his detention.
  2. Whether 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A), rather than § 1226(a), governed the detention of a noncitizen who had entered the United States years earlier and was arrested while residing in the country.
  3. Whether Petitioner was entitled to an individualized bond hearing under § 1226(a).
  4. Whether the court should decide Petitioner's due process claim after granting statutory relief.

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (17)

  • Nasrallah v. Barr, 590 U.S. 573, 578 n.2 (2020)(followed)
  • Soberanes v. Comfort, 388 F.3d 1305, 1310 (10th Cir. 2004)(followed)
  • Niz-Chavez v. Garland, 593 U.S. 155, 160 (2021)(followed)
  • Kamen v. Kemper Financial Services, Inc., 500 U.S. 90, 99 (1991)(followed)
  • Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, 525 U.S. 471, 482, 487 (1999)(followed)
  • Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281, 289, 294, 306 (2018)(followed)
  • Mukantagara v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 67 F.4th 1113, 1116 (10th Cir. 2023)(followed)
  • BedRoc Ltd., LLC v. United States, 541 U.S. 176, 183 (2004)(followed)
  • King v. Burwell, 576 U.S. 473, 486 (2015)(followed)
  • United States v. Bishop, 412 U.S. 346, 356 (1973)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 17.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…