Garcia-Falcon v. Noem et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
MARIO GARCIA-FALCON, 	)
)
Petitioner, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Case No. CIV-26-480-J
)
MARKWAYNE MULLIN, et al., 	)
)
Respondents. 	)
ORDER
Petitioner Mario Garcia-Falcon, a citizen of Mexico, is currently in the custody of
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). He has filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 seeking release, or in the alternative, a bond hearing. [Doc. No. 1].
The matter was referred to United States Magistrate Chris M. Stephens consistent with 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(B), (C). 	Judge Stephens issued a Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 13]
recommending that the Court: (1) grant the Petition in part and order Respondents to provide
Petitioner with a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within five business days or otherwise
release him if he has not received a lawful bond hearing within that period; and (2) order
Respondents to certify compliance by filing a status report within seven business days of the
Court’s order. Petitioner filed a timely partial objection to the Report and Recommendation [Doc.
No. 14], and Respondents filed a timely objection [Doc. No. 15], triggering de novo review. See
Quint v. Vail Resorts, Inc., 89 F.4th 803, 808 (10th Cir. 2023).
For the reasons discussed below, the Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED, and the
Petition is GRANTED to the extent it alleges Petitioner’s lack of bond hearing violates federal
law.
Case 5:26-cv-00480-J Document 16 Filed 04/21/26 Page 1 of 3

2
Petitioner entered the United States “without inspection or admission over 20 years ago.”
[Doc. No. 1 ¶ 22]. On December 18, 2025, Petitioner alleges he was “arrested for a traffic offense
in Arcadia, Florida” and then “transferred to ICE custody the following day.” Id. ¶ 24. That same
day, ICE placed Petitioner into removal proceedings before the Immigration Court pursuant to
8 U.S.C. § 1229a through the issuance of a Notice to Appear and charged him with being
inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i) as someone who entered the United States without
inspection. 	[Doc. No. 11 at 13; Doc. No. 11-1 at 1]. 	At some point in time after his arrest,
Petitioner filed an Application for Cancellation of Removal. 	[Doc. No. 11 at 13]. 	Petitioner is
currently in ICE custody and is detained at the Diamondback Correctional Facility in Watonga,
Oklahoma. Id.; [Doc. No. 1 ¶ 25].
Respondents object to Judge Stephens’ conclusion that § 1226(a) controls Petitioner’s
detention. Respondents insist that § 1225(b)(2)(A) controls because Petitioner is an applicant for
admission and that section unambiguously requires all applicants for admission to be subject to
mandatory detention. See [Doc. No. 15 at 2–10]. Although employing a de novo review, the Court
declines to engage in lengthy analysis here.1 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).
1 “[N]either 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) nor Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) requires the district court to make any
specific findings; the district court must merely conduct a de novo review of the record.” Garcia
v. City of Albuquerque, 232 F.3d 760, 766 (10th Cir. 2000). Indeed, the circuit court has upheld
district court orders which “merely repeated the language of § 636(b)(1) to indicate its [de novo]
compliance.” In re Griego, 64 F.3d 580, 584 (10th Cir. 1995) (“[I]t is common practice among
district judges in this circuit to make such a statement and adopt the magistrate judges’
recommended dispositions when they find that magistrate judges have dealt with the issues fully
and accurately and that they could add little of value to that analysis.”).
Case 5:26-cv-00480-J Document 16 Filed 04/21/26 Page 2 of 3

3
Unless the Tenth Circuit and/or Supreme Court hold differently, the matter is well settled in this
Court and further discussion is unwarranted.
Petitioner has not received a bond hearing, and Respondents raise no objection challenging
their obligation to provide bond hearings for noncitizens under § 1226(a). Therefore, the Court
finds that Petitioner is entitled to a bond hearing and Respondents’ failure to provide one violates
§ 1226(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 13] on de
novo review and GRANTS Petitioner’s Petition in so far as it finds Respondents violated the
Immigration and Nationality Act. 	The Court, therefore, ORDERS Respondents to provide
Petitioner with a bond hearing pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within five business days of the date
of this Order, or otherwise release Petitioner if he has not received the hearing within that period.
Respondents shall certify compliance by filing a status report within seven business days of the
date of this Order.
A separate judgment will enter.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 21st day of April, 2026.
Case 5:26-cv-00480-J Document 16 Filed 04/21/26 Page 3 of 3