govinfo:USCOURTS-okwd-5_26-cv-00971-1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA 
 
EVERARDO SANDOVAL ROMO, ) 
 ) 
 Petitioner, ) 
 ) 
v. ) Case No. CIV-26-971-J 
 ) 
MARKWAYNE MULLIN, et al., ) 
 ) 
 Respondents. ) 
 
ORDER 
 
Petitioner Everardo Sandoval Romo, a citizen of Mexico , is currently in the custody of 
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). He has filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 seeking release, or in the alternative, a bond hearing [Doc. No. 1]. 
The matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Amanda L. Maxfield who issued a 
Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 10] recommending that the Court grant the Petition in part 
by ordering Respondents to provide Petitioner a n individualized bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 
1226(a) within seven days, at which Respondents bear the burden of proof, by clear and convincing 
evidence that Petitioner is a flight risk or danger to the community, or otherwise release Petitioner 
if he has not received a lawful bond hearing within that period. Respondents filed a timely 
Objection [Doc. No. 11] , triggering de novo review , see Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) ; Quint v. Vail 
Resorts, Inc., 89 F.4th 803, 808 (10th Cir. 2023). 
Petitioner is a citizen of Mexico who entered the United States on or about October 26, 
2009, without inspection. On April 9, 2023, ICE instituted removal proceedings against him by 
issuing a Notice to Appear, alleging he was an alien present in the United States who had not been 
admitted or paroled, and on the same date, he was released on his own recognizance. On or about 
February 8, 2024, Petitioner filed an E -42B, Application for Cancellation of Removal and 
Adjustment of Status for Certain Nonpermanent Residents. On April 10, 2026, Petitioner was 

2 
taken into custody at a routine ICE check-in pursuant to a United States Department of Homeland 
Security Warrant for Arrest of Alien. 
Respondents object to Judge M axfield’s conclusion that § 1226(a) controls Petitioner’s 
detention. Respondents contend that § 1225(b) controls because Petitioner is an applicant for 
admission and that section unambiguously requires all applicants for admission to be subject to 
mandatory detention. See Obj. at 1-2. Although employing a de novo review, the Court declines 
to engage in lengthy analysis here. 1 This Court, and indeed most courts in this circuit and 
nationwide, have repeatedly concluded that § 1226(a) controls in this situation. See Ramirez v. 
Johnson, No. CIV -26-426-J, 2026 WL 1683139, at *1 (W.D. Okla. June 10, 2026); Coreas v. 
Noem, No. CIV-26-151-J, 2026 WL 541151, at *2 (W.D. Okla. Feb. 26, 2026) (collecting cases). 
Unless the Tenth Circuit and/or Supreme Court hold differently, the matter is well settled in this 
Court and further discussion is unwarranted. 
Respondents further assert that if the Court adopts its prior statutory reasoning, it need not 
consider Petitioner’s due process claim. The Court agrees. Because the Court’s finding that 
Respondents violated the Immigration and Nationality Act results in the same relief that is 
requested through Petitioner’s due process claim, the Court finds there is no need to address 
Petitioner’s due process claim. 
Finally, with respect to Judge M axfield’s conclusion that “at [Petitioner’s] bond hearing, 
the Government shall bear the burden of proving, by clear and convincing evidence, that Petitioner 
 
1 “[N]either 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) nor Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) requires the district court to make any 
specific findings; the district court must merely conduct a de novo review of the record.” Garcia 
v. City of Albuquerque, 232 F.3d 760, 766 (10th Cir. 2000). Indeed, the circuit court has upheld 
district court orders which “merely repeated the language of § 636(b)(1) to indicate its [de novo] 
compliance.” In re Griego, 64 F.3d 580, 584 (10th Cir. 1995) (“[I]t is common practice among 
district judges in this circuit to make such a statement and adopt the magistrate judges’ 
recommended dispositions when they find that magistrate judges have dealt with the issues fully 
and accurately and that they could add little of value to that analysis.”). 
 

3 
is a flight risk and/or a danger to the community in order to justify continued detention”, see [Doc. 
No. 10] at 23, the Court finds that this issue is premature and not fit for adjudication at this stage. 
A claim is not ripe for adjudication if it rests upon “‘contingent future events that may not occur 
as anticipated, or indeed may not occur at all.’” Thomas v. Union Carbide Agric. Prods. Co., 473 
U.S. 568, 580–581 (1985) (quoting 13A C. Wright, A. Miller, & E. Cooper, Federal Practice and 
Procedure § 3532 (1984)). At this po int in time , no immigration judge has conducted a bond 
hearing in Petitioner’s case, much less allocated the burden of proof or applied the particular facts 
of this case to that evidentiary framework. Accordingly, the Court declines to issue an advisory 
opinion instructing the Immigration Judge to apply a particular burden of proof . See Jalloh v. 
Garland, No. CIV-22-908-R, 2023 WL 3690252, at *2 (W.D. Okla. May 26, 2023) (declining to 
prospectively order Immigration Judge to adhere to specific burden of proof at bond hearing) ; 
Bolus A. D. v. Sec'y of Homeland Sec., 376 F. Supp. 3d 959, 963 (D. Minn. 2019). 
Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 10] is ADOPTED IN PART and 
Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is GRANTED in so far as it finds Respondents 
violated the Immigration and Nationality Act. T he Court, therefore, ORDERS Respondents to 
provide Petitioner with a bond hearing pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within seven (7) days of the 
date of this Order, or otherwise release Petitioner if he has not received the hearing within that 
period. Respondents shall certify compliance within ten (10) days of the date of this Order. 
A separate judgment will enter. 
 IT IS SO ORDERED this 16
th day of June, 2026. 
 
 

Passage view · GavelSight