Sajbochol, Mynor v. Krome North Service Processing Center

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
MYNOR GEOVANY SUCUC 	)
SAJBOCHOL, 	)
Petitioner, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Case No. CIV-26-193-J
)
FRED FIGUEROA, WARDEN,1 	)
et al. 	)
)
Respondents. 	)
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Petitioner Mynor Geovany Sucuc Sajbochol, a noncitizen2 appearing pro
se,3 seeks a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Doc. 1.4 The
undersigned recommended the Court grant habeas relief to Petitioner because
1 	Pursuant 	to 	Fed. 	R. 	Civ. 	P. 	25(d), 	the 	Court 	adds 	Department 	of
Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Markwayne Mullin, and Todd Blanche
(the acting Attorney General) as Respondents. The Warden of Diamondback
Correctional Facility is not a federal official, so the response is not filed on
behalf of the Warden. See Doc. 11, at 2 n.1.
2 	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)).
3 	This Court construes “[a] pro se litigant’s pleadings . . . liberally,” holding
them “to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.”
Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991).
4 	Citations to a court document are to its electronic case filing designation
and pagination. Except for capitalization, quotations are verbatim unless
otherwise indicated.
Case 5:26-cv-00193-J Document 15 Filed 04/27/26 Page 1 of 8

2
he was arrested without a warrant, as required under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). Doc.
12. In its objection, the government produced the warrant dated the day of
Petitioner’s arrest. Doc. 13, Att. 1. United States District Judge Bernard M.
Jones, II re-referred the case to the undersigned Magistrate Judge under 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), (C), for further consideration. Doc. 14.
For the reasons below, the undersigned recommends the Court grant
Petitioner’s habeas petition in part and order that he receive an individualized
bond hearing.
I. 	Factual background and procedural history.
Petitioner is a citizen of Guatemala who entered the country at an
unknown 	place 	at 	an 	unknown 	time 	without 	inspection. 	Doc. 	11, 	at 	2.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers arrested him after
stopping his vehicle on December 22, 2025. Doc. 1, at 4, 6. On the date of his
arrest, the Department of Homeland Security produced a warrant as § 1226(a)
required and placed him in standard removal proceedings. See Doc. 11, Att. 1.
There is no indication Petitioner has any criminal history. An Immigration
Judge (IJ) ordered his removal on April 17, 2026, and Petitioner may file an
appeal by May 18, 2026.5
5 	The undersigned takes judicial notice of the Immigration Court’s filings
in 	Petitioner’s 	case, 	available 	at 	Automated 	Case 	Information,
Case 5:26-cv-00193-J Document 15 Filed 04/27/26 Page 2 of 8

3
II. 	Petitioner’s claims.
Petitioner raises two grounds for relief:
Ground One: Violation of his Fourth Amendment rights in his
arrest and detention; and
Ground Two: Violation of his Fifth Amendment due process
rights related to his arrest and detention.
Doc. 1, at 6.
For Ground One he states:
When stopped and taken without factual reason, with no warrant
or question asked, ICE officials broke the windows to Mynor’s
vehicle, searched Mynor’s vehicle and grabbed his wallet without
his consent or permission.
Id.
For Ground Two Petitioner states:
Mynor was taken without any question or indication to what was
happening. He was not told his rights, he did not say anything to
any official and was just taken by these officials. He never said he
was “illegal” nor did he say he was “legal” or a “U.S. Citizen.”
Nothing was said, he was just taken. He did not get due process
and is in detention he still does not have a said court date.
Id.
https://acis.eoir.justice.gov/en/caseInformation (last visited April, 27, 2026).
See 	United 	States 	v. 	Pursley, 	577 	F.3d 	1204, 	1214 	n.6 	(10th 	Cir. 	2009)
(exercising discretion “to take judicial notice of publicly-filed records in [this]
court and certain other courts concerning matters that bear directly upon the
disposition of the case at hand”) (quoting United States v. Ahidley, 486 F.3d
1204, 1192 n.5 (10th Cir. 2007)).
Case 5:26-cv-00193-J Document 15 Filed 04/27/26 Page 3 of 8

4
Petitioner 	asserts 	his 	detention 	“appears 	to 	be 	unlawful 	and 	in
contravention of established detention procedures.” Id. at 7. He asks the Court
to require the Government to justify his continued detention and to release
him, so he receives “a fair due process.” Id. He states:
I would like the court to provide a justification or valid explanation
for the methods taken in order to detain [Petitioner], as it appears
to 	be 	unlawful 	and 	in 	contravention 	of 	established 	detention
procedures. Specifically his Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights
were violated, and was not give[n] proper due process. I petition
the court to review the circumstances surrounding his detention
and provide clear justification for his continued detention. If no
justification can be provided I request that the court consider
releasing [Petitioner] and be given a fair due process.
Id. at 7. He is challenging how his detention is being carried out. Id. at 4.
III. 	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)).
Case 5:26-cv-00193-J Document 15 Filed 04/27/26 Page 4 of 8

5
IV. 	Discussion.
Petitioner challenges how his detention is being “carried out” under
§ 1226(a). Doc. 1, at 4. “As a general rule, it is not a crime for a removable
[noncitizen] to remain present in the United States.” Arizona v. United States,
567 U.S. 387, 407 (2012) (citing INS v. Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U.S. 1032, 1038
(1984)).6
Section 1226 “sets forth ‘the default rule’ for detaining noncitizens
‘already present in the United States.’” Quispe-Ardiles v. Noem, 2025 WL
2783800, at *5 (E.D. Va. Sept. 30, 2025) (quoting Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583
U.S. 281, 303 (2018)). Section 1226(a) permits, but does not require, the
Attorney 	General 	to 	detain 	noncitizens 	pending 	removal 	proceedings.
Jennings, 583 U.S. at 303; 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a)(1)-(2) (the Attorney General “may
continue to detain” or “may release” the noncitizen). Section 1226(a) thus
establishes a discretionary framework for the detention of noncitizens pending
removal proceedings. An alien detained under § 1226(a) is entitled to a bond
hearing at which he can argue to an immigration judge that he should be
released while he awaits removal proceedings because he is not a danger to
others or at risk for non-appearance. Jennings, 583 U.S. at 306 (“Federal
6 	The Government does not submit that ICE officers stopped or arrested
Petitioner for any other reason than his status as a noncitizen.
Case 5:26-cv-00193-J Document 15 Filed 04/27/26 Page 5 of 8

6
regulations provide that aliens detained under § 1226(a) receive bond hearings
at the outset of detention.”) (citing 8 C.F.R. §§ 236.1(d)(1), 1236.1(d)(1)).
In his over four months of detention while in removal proceedings,
Petitioner has not received an individualized bond hearing. Respondents do
not suggest otherwise. The Court should grant the Petition in part and order
Respondents to provide Petitioner with a bond hearing under § 1226(a) before
a neutral IJ within three business days or otherwise release him if he does
not have a lawful bond hearing within that period.
V. 	Recommendation and notice of right to object.
For the reasons set forth above, the undersigned recommends the Court
grant Petitioner’s habeas petition in part and order Respondents to provide
Petitioner with a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within three business
days or otherwise release Petitioner if he has not received a lawful bond
hearing within that period. The undersigned further recommends the
Court order Respondents to certify compliance by filing a status
report within seven business days of the Court’s order.
The undersigned further recommends the Court order that
• 	Counsel for the Government promptly provide a copy of this order
to 	Counsel 	for 	the 	Warden 	of 	the 	Diamondback 	Correctional
Facility.
Case 5:26-cv-00193-J Document 15 Filed 04/27/26 Page 6 of 8

7
The undersigned advises the Government of its right to file an objection
to this Report and Recommendation with the Clerk of this Court by April 30,
2026, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
72.7 The undersigned further advises the Government 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.
7 	Given the expedited nature of these proceedings, the undersigned has
reduced the typical objection time to this Report and Recommendation to three
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”).
Case 5:26-cv-00193-J Document 15 Filed 04/27/26 Page 7 of 8

8
ENTERED this 27th day of April, 2026.
Case 5:26-cv-00193-J Document 15 Filed 04/27/26 Page 8 of 8