Corrales-Umanzor

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

JOSE NAHUN )

CORRALES-UMANZOR, )

)

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. ) No. CIV-26-180-JD

)

SCARLET GRANT, )

Warden, Cimarron Detention )

Center, et al., )

)

Respondents.1 )

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Petitioner Jose Nahun Corrales-Umanzor seeks a writ of habeas corpus

under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Doc. 1.2 United States District Judge Jodi W. Dishman

referred the matter to the undersigned Magistrate Judge for proceedings

1 Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d), Department of Homeland Security

(DHS) Secretary Markwayne Mullin is substituted for former Secretary Noem

as a party. https://www.dhs.gov/news/2026/03/24/us-senate-confirms-

markwayne-mullin-secretary-department-homeland-security (last visited

April 16, 2026). Todd Blanche is the acting Attorney General and is substituted

for former Attorney General Pam Bondi as a party. https://www.justice.gov/ag

(last visited April 16, 2026). Respondents Warden Scarlet Grant and Rohit Rai,

“Field Office Director” are not federal officials, and the response is not filed on

their behalf. See Doc. 9, at 2 n.1.

2 Citations to a court document are to its electronic case filing designation

and pagination. Except for capitalization, quotations are verbatim unless

otherwise indicated.

consistent with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), (C). Doc. 4. Respondents filed a

response, Doc. 9, and the time for Petitioner to reply has lapsed. See Doc. 5, at

1-2. For the reasons set forth below, the undersigned recommends the Court

grant habeas corpus relief and order Petitioner’s immediate release.

I. Factual background and Petitioner’s claims.

Petitioner is a 34-year-old citizen of Honduras. Doc. 1, at 4. Prior to his

detention, Petitioner did not have a criminal history and he has ties in

Oklahoma through his wife, who is currently non-detained. Id. He entered the

United States with his family in 2021 without inspection at the Texas border.

Id.; Doc. 9, at 2.

DHS officials released Petitioner and his family on an order of

supervision (OOS) and placed him in removal proceedings. Doc. 1, at 4.

Petitioner sought asylum, which was denied in October 2025, and Petitioner

has appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). Id.3 Petitioner alleges

he was wrongfully detained in July 2025 during an Immigration and Customs

Enforcement (ICE) check-in without “adequate notice of the revocation of the

[OOS].” Id.

Petitioner alleges his detention violates both his procedural and

substantive due process rights. Id. at 5-6. He asks this Court to issue a show

3 The parties have not provided the Court with an update of the status of

Petitioner’s appeal.

cause order requiring Respondents to show cause why his petition should not

be granted within three days4; declare that his detention violates the Due

Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, 8 U.S.C. § 1231; and issue a Writ of

Habeas Corpus ordering Respondents to release him immediately, or in the

alternative, schedule a bond hearing before an immigration judge (IJ) where

the IJ must “afford Petitioner bond on his own recognizance, or a reasonable

bond amount.” Id. at 6. He also seeks attorneys’ fees and costs under the Equal

Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412. Id.

II. Standard of review.

An application for a writ of habeas corpus “is an attack by a person in

custody upon the legality of that custody, and . . . the traditional function of

the writ is to secure release from illegal custody.” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S.

475, 484 (1973). Habeas corpus relief is warranted only if the petitioner “is in

custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United

States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3).

III. Analysis.

A. Statutory and regulatory framework.

Petitioner argues Respondents violated his Fifth Amendment procedural

due process rights when they revoked his OOS and re-detained him without

4 The Court addressed Petitioner’s request when it directed Respondents

to respond to the petition. See Doc. 5.

“adequate notice” and denied him the “opportunity to demonstrate that he

should not be detained.” Doc. 1, at 4-5.5

Petitioner’s allegations require the Court to consider the regulations

Respondents are obligated to follow in revoking his OOS. See Saqib v.

Andrews, 2026 WL 350830, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 9, 2026) (“Because these

claims require examination of whether the government followed its own

regulations that set out procedures in revoking release, procedures that protect

important due process rights, the Court discusses these claims together.”),

adopted, 2026 WL 440566 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 17, 2026); see e.g., Kong v. United

States, 62 F.4th 608, 620 (1st Cir. 2023) (“The plain language of the regulation,

however, does not allow a court in the first instance to make the required

individualized finding. To the extent ICE claims that it made such a

5 Respondents argue that because Petitioner claims to be “a class member

under Maldonado Bautista” he is “collaterally estopped” from bringing this

action. Doc. 9, at 3-6 (quoting Doc. 1, at 2); see Maldonado Bautista v.

Santacruz, 2026 WL 468284, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 18, 2026). “District courts

are limited to granting habeas relief ‘within their respective jurisdictions.’”

Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 442 (2004) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a)).

The Maldonado Bautista court does not have jurisdiction over the Petitioner’s

custodian, as that court sits in California and Petitioner is held in the Western

District of Oklahoma. See, e.g., Maldonado Bautista v. Santacruz, 813 F. Supp.

3d 1084, 1125 (C.D. Cal. 2025) (“The Court cannot order nationwide release or

bond hearings for Bond Eligible class members, especially so to those confined

outside [the Central District of California].”).

determination, the court should review that claim in light of the regulations

instructing ICE on how it should make such a determination.”).

Agencies must follow their own regulations. United States ex rel. Accardi

v. Shaughnessy, 347 U.S. 260, 265-68 (1954); Webster v. Doe, 486 U.S. 592, 602

n.7 (1988)). When a noncitizen has been detained pursuant to a final order of

removal, ICE is required to release the noncitizen on an OOS if ICE determines

there is no significant likelihood of the noncitizen’s removal in the reasonably

foreseeable future. See 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(g)-(h); see also Zadvydas v. Davis, 533

U.S. 678, 699-700 (2001) (“[I]f removal is not reasonably foreseeable, the court

should hold continued detention unreasonable and no longer authorized by

statute.”).

Once a noncitizen is released under an OOS, as Petitioner was, his OOS

may be revoked in two circumstances: (1) for violations of “conditions of

release” specified in the OOS or (2) “if, on account of changed circumstances,

[ICE] determines that there is a significant likelihood that the [noncitizen]

may be removed in the reasonably foreseeable future.” 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(i)(1)-

(2).

The decision to revoke an OOS on account of changed circumstances

must be based on an individualized determination that those changed

circumstances render removal significantly likely in the reasonably foreseeable

future. See Kong, 62 F.4th at 619-20 (citing 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(i)(2)). ICE should

make this determination based on the following factors:

[T]he history of the [noncitizen’s] efforts to comply with the order of

removal, the history of [ICE's] efforts to remove [noncitizens] to the

country in question or to third countries, including the ongoing nature of

[ICE’s] efforts to remove this [noncitizen] and the [noncitizen’s]

assistance with those efforts, the reasonably foreseeable results of those

efforts, and the views of the Department of State regarding the prospects

for removal of [noncitizens] to the country or countries in question.

8 C.F.R. § 241.13(f). The regulations place the burden to establish changed

circumstances on ICE. See Saqib, 2026 WL 350830, at *3 (“The regulations at

[] § 241.13(i) . . . . indicate that when ICE revokes release to effectuate removal,

‘it is [ICE’s] burden to show a significant likelihood that the alien may be

removed.’” (quoting Escalante v. Noem, 2025 WL 2206113, at *3 (E.D. Tex. Aug.

2, 2025))).

If ICE elects to revoke an OOS, the noncitizen must “be notified of the

reasons for revocation of his or her release,” and ICE must “conduct an initial

informal interview promptly after [the noncitizen's] return to [ICE] custody to

afford the [noncitizen] an opportunity to respond to the reasons for revocation

stated in the notification.” 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(i)(3). The “reasons for revocation”

that ICE must provide when revoking a noncitizen’s OOS cannot be mere

conclusory assertions about changed circumstances but must contain specific

facts supporting ICE’s decision to revoke the OOS.6 And at the interview, the

6 “Courts across the country have repeatedly held that . . . boiler plate

language is simply insufficient to give notice under § 241.13.” Ahmed v. Olson,

noncitizen “may submit any evidence or information that he or she believes

shows there is no significant likelihood he or she be removed in the reasonably

foreseeable future.” Id. ICE must then consider the contested facts and

determine whether revocation of release was warranted. Id.

B. ICE violated Petitioner’s procedural due process rights by

revoking his OOS without following its own regulations

and giving him adequate notice and the opportunity to

respond.

Respondents do not specify why Petitioner’s OOS was originally issued

and agree he was released in 2024, so it is reasonable to infer that ICE must

have determined that “there was no significant likelihood of removal in the

reasonably foreseeable future” when it released him. See Pham v. Bondi, No.

CIV-25-1157-SLP, 2025 WL 3477023, at *3 (W.D. Okla. Oct. 30, 2025), adopted,

2025 WL 3243870 (W.D. Okla. Nov. 20, 2025). Respondents do not allege that

Petitioner violated any conditions of release, so it appears that Respondents

rely on the “changed circumstances” prong as the justification for revocation.

Id. at *4.

“Individuals released on parole or other forms of conditional release have

a liberty interest in their ‘continued liberty.’” Iza v. Arnott, 2026 WL 67152, at

*3 (W.D. Mo. Jan. 8, 2026) (quoting Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 482

(1972)). “The Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause forbids the Government

2026 WL 836123, at *4 (E.D. Ky. Mar. 26, 2026) (collecting cases).

to deprive any person of liberty without due process of law. Freedom from

imprisonment—from government custody, detention, or other forms of physical

restraint—lies at the heart of the liberty that Clause protects.” Zadvydas, 533

U.S. at 690 (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted). Individuals

who have been conditionally released from detention have a protected interest

in their “continued liberty.” Young v. Harper, 520 U.S. 143, 147 (1997). “This

is true even when the released individual is subject to extensive conditions of

release.” Villanueva v. Tate, 801 F. Supp. 3d 689, 704 (S.D. Tex. 2025). And the

Due Process Clause is also implicated where “an individual has reasonably

relied on agency regulations promulgated for his guidance or benefit and has

suffered substantially because of their violation by the agency.” United States

v. Caceres, 440 U.S. 741, 752–53 (1979).

Petitioner’s Notice of Custody Determination provides no reason for the

revocation of his OOS. See Doc. 9, Ex. 2. The Government had the opportunity

to apprise the Court of all facts relating to the revocation of Petitioner’s OOS

when Respondents responded to the petition, but provide the Court with no

reasons for the revocation. Respondents do not suggest there are changed

circumstances present that necessitated revoking Petitioner’s OOS. As a

result, Respondents failed to comply with ICE’s revocation procedures when

they re-detained Petitioner after his release on an OOS. See Pham, 2025 WL

3243870, at *1 (“ICE[] failed to comply with § 241.13(i)(2) in establishing a

change of circumstances that demonstrated a significant likelihood of removal

in the reasonably foreseeable future at the time of Petitioner’s re-detention.

District courts in the Tenth Circuit facing this same issue have found that a

failure to establish changed circumstances amounts to a due process violation

that justifies release.”) (collecting cases).

There is also no indication in the record that Petitioner received formal

written notification of the reasons for his renewed detention when he was

detained in July 2025, or at any time thereafter. Under § 241.13(i)(3), “[u]pon

revocation, the [noncitizen] will be notified of the reasons for revocation of his

or her release,” after which the noncitizen will be afforded “an initial informal

interview promptly after his or her return to [ICE] custody to afford the

[noncitizen] an opportunity to respond to the reasons for revocation stated in

the notification.” Id (emphasis added).7

“The essence of due process is notice and an opportunity to respond.”

Roble v. Bondi, 803 F. Supp. 3d 766, 772 (D. Minn. 2025). But Petitioner

7 This requirement of written notice tracks the requirements of another

ICE regulation, § 241.4(d), which provides:

A copy of any decision by the district director, Director of the

Detention and Removal Field Office, or Executive Associate

Commissioner to release or to detain an alien shall be provided to

the detained alien.

8 C.F.R. § 241.4(d).

“cannot be expected to ‘respond to the reasons for revocation stated in the

notification’ if the notification does not actually state any reasons for

revocation.” Id. And the Notice of Custody Determination provided to

Petitioner contains no allegations of changes in circumstances nor of a

violation of the conditions of release in his OOS. See Doc. 9, Att. 2.

In sum, Respondents fail to show that ICE made the proper

determination when it revoked Petitioner’s OOS and the Notice provided to

Petitioner did not provide him with the reason behind the revocation of his

OOS. Santamaria Orellana v. Baker, 2025 WL 2444087, at *8 (D. Md. Aug.

25, 2025) (“[T]he record is clear that ICE’s revocation of release violated its

own regulations by failing to have an authorized official make the revocation

decision, failing to provide [the petitioner] with notification of the reasons for

his re-detention, failing to provide [the petitioner] with an informal interview,

or some combination of these deficiencies.”).

C. Appropriate remedy.

Petitioner’s procedural due process rights were violated when ICE

ignored its own regulations, depriving him of adequate notice and the

opportunity to respond to any reasons for the revocation. So, the Court must

determine what the adequate remedy shall be. The undersigned concludes the

only appropriate remedy is immediate release pursuant to the conditions of

Petitioner's preexisting OOS. See Pham, 2025 WL 3243870, at *1 (collecting

cases granting immediate release where ICE “failed to comply with §

241.13(i)(2) in establishing a change of circumstances that demonstrated a

significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future at the

time of . . . re-detention”); Ahmed, 2026 WL 836123, at *5-6 (collecting cases

granting immediate release where ICE detainees were denied notice under §

241.13).8

V. Recommendation and notice of right to object.

For the reasons set forth above, the undersigned recommends the Court

grant Petitioner’s request for habeas relief, and order his immediate release

from custody subject to the terms of his unlawfully revoked OOS. The

undersigned further recommends that the Court order Respondents submit a

declaration pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746 affirming that Petitioner has been

released from custody within ten business days of the Court’s order.9

The undersigned advises the parties of their rights to file an objection to

this Report and Recommendation with the Clerk of this Court on or before

8 The undersigned does not address Petitioner’s remaining argument

about the alleged violation of his substantive due process rights under

Zadvydas, see Doc. 1, at 5-6, because this Report and Recommendation, if

adopted, will moot these requests.

9 To the extent that Petitioner may be entitled to EAJA fees and costs as

a prevailing party, Petitioner must seek those separately after a final

judgment. 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(B); see also Daley v. Ceja, 158 F.4th 1152,

1166 (10th Cir. 2025) (interpreting “EAJA’s broad language to unambiguously

authorize fees in habeas actions challenging immigration detention”).

April 21, 2026, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 72(b)(2).!° The undersigned further advises the parties that

failure to make a timely objection to this report and recommendation waives

the right to appellate review of both factual and legal questions contained

herein. Moore v. United States, 950 F.2d 656, 659 (10th Cir. 1991).

This report and recommendation disposes of all issues and terminates

the referral to the undersigned Magistrate Judge in this matter.

ENTERED this 16th day of April, 2026.

Aga □□□ _

SUZANNE MITCHELL

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

10 Given the expedited nature of these proceedings, the undersigned has

reduced the typical objection time to this Report and Recommendation to five

days. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2) advisory committee’s note to 1983 addition

(noting that rule establishing 14-day response time “does not extend to habeas

corpus petitions, which are covered by the specific rules relating to proceedings

under Sections 2254 and 2255 of Title 28.”); see also Whitmore v. Parker, 484

F. App’x 227, 231, 231 n.2 (10th Cir. 2012) (“The Rules Governing § 2254 Cases

may be applied discretionarily to habeas petitions under § 2241” and that

“while the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure may be applied in habeas

proceedings, they need not be in every instance — particularly where strict

application would undermine the habeas review process.”).

12