Yang

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

WENLONG YANG, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

Case No. CIV-26-1498-D

)

ROBERT CERNA, et al., )

)

Respondents. )

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Petitioner Wenlong Yang, a noncitizen,1 seeks a writ of habeas corpus

under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Doc. 1.2 United States District Judge Timothy D.

DeGiusti referred the case to the undersigned Magistrate Judge under 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and (C). Doc. 3. The Government responded, Doc. 7, and

Petitioner replied, Doc. 8, so the matter is at issue.

For the reasons below, the undersigned recommends the Court deny

Petitioner’s habeas petition, Doc. 1.

I. Factual background and Petitioner’s claims.

1 This Report and Recommendation “uses the term ‘noncitizen’ as

equivalent to the statutory term ‘alien.’” Nasrallah v. Barr, 590 U.S. 573, 578

n.2 (2020) (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(3)).

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

and pagination. Except for capitalization, quotations are verbatim unless

otherwise indicated.

Petitioner is a citizen of China who entered the United States on or about

March 3, 2015. Doc. 10, Ex. 1, at 2. Petitioner entered the country under a B-2

tourist visa. Id. This visa expired on September 2, 2015. Doc. 7, at 2 & Ex. 2.

Petitioner applied for asylum on October 19, 2015, claiming that he faced

religious persecution in China. Id. at 3; Doc. 10, Ex. 1, at 5. For the next ten

years, Petitioner remained in the United States and worked in several

restaurants as a chef. Doc. 10, Ex. 1, at 4.

On May 29, 2025, the government commenced removal proceedings

against Petitioner by filing a Notice to Appear (NTA). Doc. 7, at 2 & Ex. 1, at

1. Petitioner claims that he was granted parole until 2028. Doc. 1, at 7.

On October 14, 2025, Petitioner was detained by ICE. Doc. 7, at 2. The

next day, ICE served Petitioner with a warrant. Id. & Ex. 3. Petitioner received

a custody redetermination hearing on February 2, 2026, after almost four

months in detention. Doc. 7, at 3 & Ex. 4. At the custody redetermination

hearing, the IJ determined that Petitioner was a flight risk and denied bond.

Id. On May 15, 2026, an Immigration Judge (IJ) denied Petitioner’s asylum

application and filed an order of removal. Doc. 7, at 3 & Ex. 5. Petitioner

appealed the denial on June 9, 2026, and it remains pending. Doc. 7, at 3 & Ex.

6. Petitioner remains in detention at the Cimarron Correctional Facility in

Cushing, Oklahoma. Doc. 1, at 1.

2

Petitioner presents four claims for relief: (1) he was unlawfully arrested

and detained without a warrant; (2) he was detained without notice or a

meaningful opportunity to respond; (3) his bond hearing was unreasonably

delayed, in violation of the Fifth Amendment due process clause; and (4) his

arrest and detention violated immigration regulations. Id. at 7-8.

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). “Challenges to immigration detention are

properly brought directly through habeas.” Soberanes v. Comfort, 388 F.3d

1305, 1310 (10th Cir. 2004) (citing Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 687-88

(2001)).

III. The Court cannot encroach upon an IJ’s discretionary weighing

of the evidence.

In determining whether a noncitizen is a flight risk, the IJ may consider

the following factors:

(1) whether the alien has a fixed address in the United States; (2)

the alien’s length of residence in the United States; (3) the alien’s

3

family ties in the United States, and whether they may entitle the

alien to reside permanently in the United States in the future; (4)

the alien’s employment history; (5) the alien’s record of appearance

in court; (6) the alien’s criminal record, including the extensiveness

of criminal activity, the recency of such activity, and the

seriousness of the offenses; (7) the alien’s history of immigration

violations; (8) any attempts by the alien to flee prosecution or

otherwise escape from authorities; and (9) the alien’s manner of

entry to the United States.

In re Guerra, 24 I. & N. Dec. 37, 40 (B.I.A. 2006).

When a noncitizen like Petitioner is detained under § 1226(a) “the

Attorney General may exercise his discretion to either detain or release an

alien on bond or conditional parole.” Mwangi v. Terry, 465 F. App’x 784, 786

(10th Cir. 2012). “But the Attorney General’s exercise of discretion is not

subject to judicial review.” Id. “In the context of an immigration bond hearing,

district courts have jurisdiction to review [an IJ’s] discretionary bond denial

only ‘where that bond denial is challenged as legally erroneous or

unconstitutional.’” Diaz-Calderon v. Barr, 535 F. Supp. 3d 669, 675 (E.D. Mich.

2020) (quoting Lopez Reyes v. Bonnar, 362 F. Supp. 3d 762 (N.D. Cal. 2019)).

“To be sure, ‘[d]ue process is not satisfied by rubberstamp denials [of bond].’”

Kumar v. De Anda-Ybarra, No. CIV-26-164-R, 2026 WL 753944, at *2 (W.D.

Okla. Mar. 17, 2026) (quoting Chi Thon Ngo v. I.N.S., 192 F.3d 390, 398 (3d

Cir. 1999)). But “a district court sitting in habeas . . . review[ing] due process

challenges to immigration bond hearings must proceed carefully, as it ‘has no

4

authority to encroach upon an IJ’s discretionary weighing of the evidence.’”

Diaz-Calderon, 535 F. Supp. 3d at 675 (quoting Arrellano v. Sessions, 2019 WL

3387210, at *7 (W.D.N.Y. 2019)).

Petitioner received a custody redetermination hearing, in which he was

represented by counsel. The IJ noted Petitioner’s lack of family ties to the U.S.

and “limited history of employment.” Doc. 12, Ex. 1, at 10. The IJ, based on

those factors, denied Petitioner’s request for bond, determining he was a flight

risk. Id. at 9. Although these findings may appear rote, the undersigned

concludes the hearing comported with due process. Petitioner reserved his

right to appeal that decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) and

that appeal remains pending. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.19(f); 8 C.F.R. § 1236.1(d)(3).

Given the IJ’s finding that Petitioner was a flight risk, the undersigned

recommends the Court deny Petitioner habeas relief as he has not been

deprived of an individualized custody determination.

IV. Recommendation and notice of right to object.

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

deny Petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus, Doc. 1.

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

this Report and Recommendation with the Clerk of this Court by September 7,

2026, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

5

72. The undersigned further advises the parties that failure to make timely

objections 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 the issues referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge in the

captioned matter.

ENTERED this 24th day of August, 2026.

hea “ered _

SUZANNE MITCHELL

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE