Amouri

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

FRANCIS KAYILA AMOURI, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. ) Case No. CIV-26-1054-SLP

)

FRED FIGUREROA, et al., )

)

Respondents. )

)

O R D E R

Petitioner, Francys Kayila Amouri, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. [Doc. No. 1]. Before the Court is the Report and

Recommendation [Doc. No. 13] (R&R) of United States Magistrate Judge Amanda L.

Maxfield. The Magistrate Judge recommends granting, in part, the Petition. Respondents

have filed an Objection [Doc. No. 15]. And Petitioner has filed a Response. [Doc. No. 16].

The matter is at issue. The Court reviews de novo any portion of the R&R to which a

specific objection has been made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). Review

of all other issues addressed by the Magistrate Judge are deemed waived. See Moore v.

United States, 950 F.2d 656, 659 (10th Cir. 1991); see also United States v. 2121 E. 30th

St., 73 F.3d 1057, 1060 (10th Cir. 1996). Having conducted that review, and for the reasons

that follow, the Court ADOPTS the R&R, in part, and GRANTS, in part, the Petition.

I. Background

Petitioner, a citizen of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, entered the United

States on May 29, 2022. On December 22, 2022, Petitioner was placed by Immigration

and Customs Enforcement (ICE) into removal proceedings through the issuance of a Notice

to Appear and charged him with being inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i).

Petitioner was subsequently released from ICE custody on an Order of Release on

Recognizance pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226. On February 7, 2023, Petitioner filed an

application for asylum, which appears to remain pending.

Petitioner was re-detained by ICE on January 5, 2026. Petitioner has been

continuously detained without bond since his arrest pursuant to the mandatory detention

provisions set forth in § 1225(b)(2)(A). When Petitioner filed his Petition, he was detained

at Diamondback Correctional Facility in Watonga, Oklahoma.

On March 19, 2026, an Immigration Judge ordered Petitioner removed from the

United States. Petitioner subsequently filed an appeal of the removal order, which remains

pending before the Board of Immigration appeals.

On May 9, 2026, Petitioner filed this action, claiming violations of the Immigration

and Nationality Act, violation of Respondents own regulations, and a violation of his due

process rights under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Petitioner

claims that § 1225(b)(2)(A) does not apply to him and that his continued detention without

a bond hearing violates his due process rights. As relief, Petitioner seeks release from

custody or, in the alternative, a bond hearing pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). Additionally,

Petitioner requests that the Court prohibit his transfer during the pendency of this action.

II. Discussion

The Magistrate Judge recommended that the Court grant habeas relief and order

Respondents to provide Petitioner with a bond hearing under § 1226(a) before a neutral

Immigration Judge (IJ) within seven (7) business days or, in the alternative, for

Respondents to release Petitioner from custody.

The Court concurs with the Magistrate Judge’s findings and rejects Respondents’

statutory interpretation of §§ 1226(a) and 1225(b)(2)(A). The Magistrate Judge’s findings

are consistent with this Court’s previous determinations that § 1226(a) governs the

detention of similarly situated immigration detainees. See Lopez v. Corecivic Cimmaron

Corr. Facility, No. CIV-25-1175-SLP, 2026 WL 165490 at *3-7 (W.D. Okla. Jan. 21, 2026).

The Court’s previous determination is in accord with the Tenth Circuit’s recent decision,

based on indistinguishable material facts. See Santillan Quiroz v. Mullin, -- F.4th --, No.

26-6019, 2026 WL 1876709 at *8 (10th Cir. June 30, 2026) (mandate pending) (holding

that “§ 1225(b)(2)(A)’s application is limited to the border”).1 The Court, therefore, finds

that § 1226(a) governs Petitioner’s detention, and he is entitled to an individualized bond

hearing.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 9]

is ADOPTED IN PART and the Petition [Doc. No. 1] is GRANTED IN PART.

1 Similarly, “the Second, Sixth, and Eleventh Circuits have each held that § 1225(b)(2)(A) does

not apply to unadmitted noncitizens who . . . are found in the country’s interior.” Id. at *3 (citing

Barbosa da Cunha v. Freden, 175 F.4th 61 (2d Cir. 2026); Lopez-Campos v. Raycraft, 175 F.4th

713 (6th Cir. 2026); Hernandez Alvarez v. Warden, Fed. Det. Ctr. Mia., 175 F.4th 1258 (11th Cir.

2026); but see Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, 166 F.4th 494, 498 (5th Cir. 2026); Avila v. Bondi, 170

F.4th 1128, 1138 (8th Cir. 2026).

Respondents are ORDERED to provide Petitioner with a proper bond hearing pursuant to

8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within seven (7) business days of the date of this Order or otherwise

release Petitioner if he has not received a proper bond hearing within that period.”

A separate judgment shall be entered.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 28" day of July, 2026.

SCOTT L. PALK

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

? Because the Court finds that habeas relief should be granted on Petitioner’s statutory claim, the

Court declines to address his remaining claims.