govinfo:USCOURTS-okwd-5_26-cv-00771-1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA 
 
LUIS FRANCISCO ARELLANO-URUENA, ) 
 ) 
 Petitioner, ) 
 ) 
v. ) Case No. CIV-26-771-J 
 ) 
JOSHUA JOHNSON, et al., ) 
 ) 
 Respondents. ) 
 
ORDER 
 
Petitioner Luis Francisco Arellano-Uruena, a noncitizen from Venezuela, filed a Petition 
for Writ of Habeas Corpus . [Doc. No. 1]. The matter was referred to United States 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 Petition in part and (2) 
order Respondents to provide Petitioner with a bond hearing within seven days or otherwise release 
him. Judge Maxfield also recommended that the Court order the Government to bear the burden 
of proving, by clear and convincing evidence, that Petitioner is a flight risk and/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 Quint v. Vail Resorts, Inc., 
89 F.4th 803, 808 (10th Cir. 2023). Petitioner did not object. 
For the reasons discussed below, the Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED IN PART 
and DECLINED IN PART and the Petition is GRANTED IN PART to the extent it alleges 
Petitioner’s lack of bond hearing violates federal law. 
I. Background 
Petitioner entered the United States in October 2023 and was shortly thereafter detained 
and released by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Eventually, Petitioner filed a Form 

2 
 
I-589 Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal. In March 2026, ICE officials 
arrested Petitioner on a warrant. In his Petition, Petitioner asserts that his continued detention 
without a bond hearing violates the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and his Fifth 
Amendment due process rights.1 
II. Report and Recommendation 
In relevant part, Judge Maxfield concluded that (1) this Court has jurisdiction to consider 
Petitioner’s claims, and (2) Petitioner’s continued detention without a bond hearing violates the 
INA. See Rep. & Rec. at 8-12. On the latter finding, Judge Maxfield explained 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. See id. As noted above, Judge Maxfield also found that the 
Government should bear the burden at the bond hearing. See id. at 14-24. Finally, Judge Maxfield 
found that the Court lacks jurisdiction to prohibit Petitioner’s transfer to another ICE facility, see 
id. at 6-7, and noted that Petitioner’s request for EAJA fees and costs was premature. See id. at 5, 
n. 5. 
III. Analysis 
A. Petitioner 
 Petitioner did not object to the Report and Recommendation, thus waiving de novo review. 
See Casanova v. Ulibarri, 595 F.3d 1120, 1123 (10 th Cir. 2010). The Court therefore ADOPTS 
Judge Maxfield’s recommendation to the extent she finds that (1) the Court lacks jurisdiction to 
prevent Petitioner’s transfer to another ICE facility, and (2) Petitioner’s request for EAJA fees and 
costs is premature. 
 
1 Because the Court grants Petitioner relief under the INA, it declines to address his constitutional 
claim. 

3 
 
 B. Respondents 
Respondents first object on grounds that the Court lacks jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 
1252(g). See Obj. at 1-5. On de novo review, this argument is rejected. This Court and many 
others have already concluded that § 1252(g) does not strip the district court of jurisdiction. See 
Thabata v. Blanche , No. CIV-26-531-J, 2026 WL 1495209, at *1 (W.D. Okla. May 28, 2026) 
(collecting cases). No further discussion is warranted. 
Respondents further object to Judge Maxfield’s conclusion that § 1226(a) applies. See Obj. 
at 5-10. Although employing a de novo review, the Court again declines to engage in a lengthy 
analysis. 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) . Others have disagreed, 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) ; however, unless the Tenth Circuit and/or Supreme Court hold 
differently, the matter is well settled in this Court and further discussion is unwarranted. Therefore, 
the Court finds that Petitioner is entitled to a bond hearing and Respondents’ failure to provide one 
violates § 1226(a). 
Finally, Respondents object to Judge Maxfield’s conclusion that Petitioner’s lack of hearing 
violates due process and that at any bond hearing, the burden should be on the Government. See 
Obj. at 10-14. However, the Court declines to address Petitioner’s due process claim, see supra at 
2, n. 1, thus mooting the objection. Additionally, the Court finds that the issue of burden shifting 
is premature and not fit for adjudication at this stage. See Saidi v. Lyons, No. CIV-26-738-J, 2026 
WL 1333410, at *1 (W.D. Okla. May 13, 2026) (collecting cases). Thus, the Court declines to 
issue an advisory opinion instructing application of a particular burden of proof. 

4 
 
IV. Conclusion 
For the reasons above , the Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 10] is ADOPTED IN 
PART and Petitioner’s Petition is GRANTED IN PART in so far as it alleges Respondents violated 
the INA. The Court ORDERS Respondents to provide Petitioner with a bond hearing pursuant to 
8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within seven days of the date of this Order, or release Petitioner if no hearing 
occurs within that period. The Report and Recommendation is further ADOPTED IN PART to the 
extent it concludes that (1) the Court lacks jurisdiction to prevent Petitioner’s transfer to another 
ICE facility and (2) Petitioner’s request for EAJA fees and costs is premature. 
The Report and Recommendation is DECLINED IN PART as the Court declines to issue 
an advisory opinion regarding the burden of proof. 
Respondents shall certify compliance within ten days of the date of this Order. 
A separate judgment will enter. 
IT IS SO ORDERED this 10th day of June, 2026. 
 
 
 
 

Passage view · GavelSight