govinfo:USCOURTS-okwd-5_26-cv-00940-1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA 
 
OSCAR AMILCAR PRADO-RAMIREZ, ) 
 ) 
 Petitione
r, ) 
 ) 
v. ) Case No. CIV-26-940-J 
 ) 
MARKWAYNE MULLIN, et al., ) 
 ) 
 Respondents. ) 
 
ORDER 
 
Petitioner Oscar Amilcar Prado-Ramirez, a citizen of Guatemala, 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 (Petition) seeking release, or in the alternative, a bond hearing. The 
matter was referred to United Stat es Magistrate Judge Amanda L. Maxfield consistent with 28 
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), (C). Judge Maxfield issued a Report and Recommendation recommending 
that the Court: (1) grant the Peti tion in part and order Respondent s to provide Petitioner with an 
individualized bond hearing, as required under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and due process, within seven 
days or otherwise release him; and (2) require the Government to bear the burden at the bond 
hearing to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Petitioner is either a flight risk or a danger 
to the community to justify continued detention. (Rep. & Rec.) [Doc. No. 10]. Respondents filed 
a timely Objection (Obj.) [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). 
I. Background 
Petitioner entered the United States in April 2019. Petition ¶ 15. At that point in time, he 
was “not then admitted or paroled after inspection by an Immigration Officer.” Id. Ex. 3 at 2. 
Shortly thereafter, he was rele ased from ICE custody on an Orde r of Release and Recognizance 

2 
 
under 8 U.S.C. § 1226. [Doc. No. 9-2]. In November 2025, Petitioner was taken into custody by 
local law enforcement on charges of resisting arrest and obstruction. Petition ¶ 20. ICE placed a 
detainer with the county jail and—after the criminal charge s were dismissed—re-detained 
Petitioner on November 26, 2025. Id. ¶ 21; see also id. Ex. 2 at 3. Petitione r asserts he did not 
have a “meaningful opportunity to contest his detention prior to being taken into ICE custody” and 
that he has not “been afforded a constitutionally adequate bond hearing in which the government 
bears the burden to justify his continued detention.” Id. ¶ 22. 
Petitioner was subsequently issued a Notice to Appear, which states Petitioner is “an alien 
present in the United States without being admitted or paroled.” Id. Ex. 2 at 2. Petitioner’s removal 
proceeding remains ongoing and he has filed a Form I-589 Application for Asylum. 
II. Report and Recommendation 
Upon review, Judge Maxfield concludes that Petitioner is not seeking admission as 
contemplated under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) and thus 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) controls his detention. 
As such, Petitioner’s continued detention with out a bond hearing violates the Immigration and 
Nationality Act. See Rep. & Rec. at 8–12. Judge Maxfield further concludes that due process also 
entitles Petitioner to a bond hearing and as such, the Court should require the Government to bear 
the burden to prove by clear and co nvincing evidence that Petitioner is either a flight risk or a 
danger to the community to justify continued detention. See id. at 12–24. 
III. Analysis 
Respondents first object to Judge Maxfield’s conclusion that § 1226(a) controls Petitioner’s 
detention. See Obj. at 1–2. Although employing a de novo review, the Court declines to engage 
in lengthy analysis. This Court, and indeed most courts in this circuit and nationwide, have 
repeatedly concluded that § 1226(a) controls in this situation. See Rawal v. Figueroa, No. CIV-

3 
 
26-354-J, 2026 WL 1232291, at *1 (W.D. Okla. May 5, 2026). Unless the Tenth Circuit and/or 
Supreme Court hold differently, the matter is well settled in this Court a nd further discussion is 
unwarranted. 
Respondents also object to Judge Maxfield’s co nclusion that Petitioner’s lack of hearing 
violates due process and that at any bond hear ing, the burden should be on the Government. See 
Obj. at 2–5. However, the Court declines to ad dress Petitioner’s due process claim thus mooting 
the objection. Additionally, the Court finds that the issue of burden shifting 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). At this time, no immigration judge has 
conducted a hearing in Petitioner’s case, much less allocated the bu rden of proof or applied the 
particular facts of this case to that evidentiary framework. Accordingly, the Court declines to issue 
an advisory opinion instructing application of a particular burden of proof. See Rawal, 2026 WL 
1232291, at *1 (declining to prospectiv ely order Immigration Judge to adhere to specific burden 
of proof at the bond hearing); Hernandez v. Mullin, No. CIV-26-475-R, 2026 WL 1625669, at *3 
(W.D. Okla. June 5, 2026); Rangel v. Mullin, No. CIV-26-568-D, 2026 WL 1625653, at *2 n.2 
(W.D. Okla. June 5, 2026); Singh v. Figueroa, No. CIV-26-600-R, 2026 WL 1181699, at *1 n.2 
(W.D. Okla. Apr. 30, 2026); Jalloh v. Garland, No. CIV-22-908-R, 2023 WL 3690252, at *2 (W.D. 
Okla. May 26, 2023). 
IV. Conclusion 
For the reasons above, the Report and Reco mmendation [Doc. No. 10] is ADOPTED IN 
PART and Petitioner’s Petition is GRANTED in so far as it finds Respondents violated the 
Immigration and Nationality Ac t. The Court, therefore, ORDERS Respondent s to provide 

4 
 
Petitioner with a bond hearing pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within seven days of the date of this 
Order, or otherwise release Petitioner if he has not received the hearing within that period. 
A separate judgment will enter. 
IT IS SO ORDERED this 11
th day of June, 2026. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Passage view · GavelSight