Martinez Caldera v. Noem et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
CARLOS MARTINEZ CALDERA, 	)
)
Petitioner, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Case No. CIV-26-331-R
)
MARKWAYNE MULLIN, et al., 	)
)
Respondents. 	)
ORDER
Petitioner, a citizen of Mexico, entered the United States without inspection on or
about January 1, 1994. On December 15, 2022, the Department of Homeland Security
issued a Notice to Appear charging Petitioner as subject to removal under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1182(a)(6)(A)(i), classifying him as someone who entered the United States without
having been admitted or paroled. Petitioner was released on his own recognizance but was
later detained by ICE on December 26, 2025, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2).
Now before the Court is Petitioner’s Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [Doc. No. 11] claiming violations of the Immigration and
Nationality Act, the United States Constitution, and other regulations, procedures, and
doctrines. Petitioner asserts the mandatory detention provision pursuant to which he is
currently being detained, 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A), does not apply to noncitizens like him
who previously entered the country. Respondents filed a Response in Opposition [Doc. No.
15]. Petitioner filed a Reply [Doc. No. 16].
Case 5:26-cv-00331-R Document 17 Filed 04/09/26 Page 1 of 3

2
The key question in this case is whether Petitioner is properly detained pursuant
to § 1225(b)(2)(A), which provides for mandatory detention, or whether he must instead
be detained pursuant to § 1226(a), which generally provides for a bond hearing. As
Respondents acknowledge, this Court has previously determined that § 1226(a) governs
the detention of noncitizens, like Petitioner, that were apprehended within the United States
after entering the country without admission or inspection. See Valdez v. Holt, Case No.
CIV-25-1250-R, 2025 WL 3709021, at *1 (W.D. Okla. Dec. 22, 2025); Perez v. Grant,
No. CIV-25-1560-R, 2026 WL 315065, at *1 (W.D. Okla. Feb. 5, 2026); Salomov v. Noem,
No. CIV-26-143-R, 2026 WL 607446, at *1 (W.D. Okla. Mar. 4, 2026).1 Consistent with
these prior decisions, the Court finds Petitioner is subject to detention under § 1226(a),
not § 1225(b)(2). Petitioner is thus entitled to a prompt bond hearing pursuant to § 1226(a).
Accordingly, the Petition is GRANTED in part and Respondents are directed to
provide Petitioner with a prompt bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). Because the Court
grants Petitioner’s request for a bond hearing, it declines to reach the remaining claims. If
Respondents fail to provide a bond hearing consistent with § 1226(a), Petitioner may renew
his 	other 	arguments. 	Additionally, 	Petitioner’s 	Emergency 	Motion 	for 	Temporary
Restraining Order and/or Preliminary Injunction [Doc. No. 4], in which he requests the
Court order his immediate release from ICE custody or a prompt bond hearing, is DENIED
AS MOOT.
1 On this issue, the Court finds persuasive the analysis provided by the Seventh Circuit
in Castañon-Nava v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 161 F.4th 1048 (7th Cir. 2025). The
Court also acknowledges the contrary 2-1 decisions in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, 166
F.4th 494 (5th Cir. 2026) and Avila v. Bondi, 2026 WL 819258 (8th Cir. Mar. 25, 2026).
Case 5:26-cv-00331-R Document 17 Filed 04/09/26 Page 2 of 3

3
IT IS SO ORDERED this 9 th day of April, 2026.
Case 5:26-cv-00331-R Document 17 Filed 04/09/26 Page 3 of 3