Marin

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

LUIS ANTONIO HINOJO MARIN, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. ) Case No. CIV-26-1436-J

)

MARKWAYNE MULLIN, et al.,1 )

)

Respondents. )

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Petitioner Luis Antonio Hinojo Marin, a citizen of Mexico proceeding with counsel,

filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Petition”) challenging

his detention by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”).2 (Doc. 1).3

United States District Judge Bernard M. Jones, II, referred the matter to the undersigned

Magistrate Judge for initial proceedings consistent with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), (C).

(Doc. 3). In accordance with the expedited briefing schedule, (Doc. 9), Respondents timely

filed a Response. (Doc. 11). Petitioner timely filed a Reply. (Doc. 12). As fully set forth

1 In addition to the Petition’s listed Respondents, the Court adds the Warden of

Diamondback Correctional Facility, Fred Figueroa, as a Respondent. Cf. Dopp v. McCoin,

No. CIV-18-520-D, 2019 WL 3071984, at *2 (W.D. Okla. Feb. 28, 2019) (“If a petitioner

names the wrong respondent, this Court may simply substitute the correct party.”),

adopted, 2019 WL 1952693 (W.D. Okla. May 2, 2019).

2 Petitioner is housed at Diamondback Correctional Facility in Watonga, Oklahoma. (Doc.

1, at 10).

3 Citations to the parties’ filings and attached exhibits will refer to this Court’s CM/ECF

pagination.

below, the undersigned recommends that the Petition be GRANTED in part because

Petitioner’s detention without a bond hearing violates the Immigration and Nationality Act

(“INA”). The Court should order an individualized bond hearing before a neutral

Immigration Judge within 7 days of the judgment in this matter, or else release him from

custody.

I. Factual Background

Petitioner is a citizen of Mexico who states he entered the United States without

inspection in or about 2005. (Doc. 1, at 17; see id. at Ex. 1, at 40). On May 20, 2026, ICE

instituted removal proceedings against him through issuance of a Notice to Appear

(“NTA”), alleging he was an alien present in the United States who had not been admitted

or paroled. (Doc. 1, at Ex. 1, at 40). Petitioner states he is being detained without the

opportunity for a bond hearing. (Doc. 1, at 17).

Respondents assert that Petitioner is subject to mandatory detention under §

1225(b)(2)(A). (Doc. 11, at 1). But Respondents also recognize that this matter is

controlled by Santillan Quiroz v. Mullin, 180 F.4th 1226 (10th Cir. 2026). (Id.)

II. Petitioner’s Claims and Respondents’ Responses

Petitioner makes the following claims in support of his Petition:

1. His detention is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), not § 1225(b). (Doc. 1, at

58).

2. His continued detention without an individualized bond hearing violates §

1226(a)’s implementing regulations. (Id. at 58-59).

3. His detention without a warrant violates the Fourth Amendment. (Id. at 59).

4. His detention violates the doctrine prohibiting “the retroactive application of

[a] new rule/interpretation.” (Id. at 59-60).

5. His detention violates due process. (Id. at 60).

As relief Petitioner requests immediate release from custody or, alternatively, a “a bond

hearing before a neutral [immigration judge] pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within three

days.” (Id. at 60). Petitioner also requests an award of attorney fees and costs authorized

by law.4 (Id. at 61).

While Respondents contend that Petitioner is held under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A)

and is not entitled to a bond hearing, they concede that the Tenth Circuit’s recent decision

in Santillan Quiroz, 180 F.4th 1226, “compels a different outcome.” (Doc. 11, at 1).

“Respondents request that any order be limited to ordering a bond hearing within seven

days.” (Id.) They also state “[t]here is no reason to consider additional arguments for a

bond hearing if the Court is ordering a hearing based on the statutory claim.” (Id. at 2).

III. Standard of Review

To obtain habeas corpus relief, Petitioner must show that he 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)).

4 To the extent Petitioner may be entitled to EAJA fees and costs as a prevailing party, he

must seek those separately after a final judgment. 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(B); see also

Daley v. Ceja, 158 F.4th 1152, 1166 (10th Cir. 2025) (interpreting “EAJA’s broad language

to unambiguously authorize fees in habeas actions challenging immigration detention”).

Accordingly, the Court need not address this request at this juncture.

IV. Under Santillan Quiroz v. Mullin, Petitioner Is Entitled To a Bond Hearing.

In order for the Court to determine whether Petitioner’s current detention without a

bond hearing violates the law, the Court must first determine what statute controls his

detention. Under the INA, detention of aliens who are “applicants for admission”5 and

“seeking admission” is mandatory under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A). By contrast, § 1226(a)

provides for the arrest of aliens on a warrant and grants ICE the discretion to continue

detention of the alien or to release the alien on bond.6

On June 30, 2026, the Tenth Circuit decided Santillan Quiroz, holding “that

noncitizens who entered the United States and were thereafter detained in the interior of

the country are usually subject to § 1226(a) (and thus eligible for bond), not §

1225(b)(2)(A).” 180 F.4th at 1237. The court reasoned based on the statutory text and

context that

once a noncitizen has entered unlawfully, no amount of legal maneuvering

allows him to go back in time and make his initial entry lawful. The only

time a noncitizen can be said to be seeking admission is when he is seeking

to enter the United States at the border. Since § 1225(b)(2)(A) applies only

to those seeking admission, § 1225(b)(2)(A) is likewise limited to the border.

5 8 U.S.C. § 1225(a)(1) describes an “applicant for admission” as “an alien present in the

United States who has not been admitted or who arrives in the United States.” The statute

defines “admission” and “admitted” as “the lawful entry of the alien into the United States

after inspection and authorization by an immigration officer.” Id. § 1101(a)(13).

6 The regulations accompanying the statute explain the various levels of review for a bond

determination. An ICE officer makes the initial detention or release determination, and the

alien bears the burden of “demonstrat[ing] to the satisfaction of the officer that . . . release

would not pose a danger to property or persons, and that the alien is likely to appear for

any future proceeding.” 8 C.F.R. § 236.1(c)(8). If the officer determines the alien should

be detained, the alien can seek review of that decision at a bond hearing before an

immigration judge. Id. § 236.1(d)(1). An immigration judge’s decision to detain may be

further appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). Id. § 236.1(d)(3).

Id. at 1239. This statutory interpretation is binding on this Court and applicable to

Petitioner’s factual circumstances.

Based on the Tenth Circuit’s decision in Santillan Quiroz, the undersigned

concludes that Petitioner, who was detained in the interior of the United States after

entering without admission, is subject to detention under § 1226(a). However, he has not

been granted the bond hearing provided in that statute. Thus, Petitioner has shown that he

is in custody in violation of the laws of the United States, and he is entitled to habeas relief.

28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). A bond hearing is the appropriate remedy. Santillan Quiroz, 180

F.4th at 1251 n.13.7

V. Recommendation and Notice of Right to Object

For the reasons discussed above, the undersigned recommends that the Petition

(Doc. 1) be GRANTED in part. The undersigned recommends that the Court order

Respondents to provide Petitioner an individualized bond hearing before a neutral

Immigration Judge within 7 days of the judgment in this matter, or else release him from

custody.

The Court advises the parties of their right to object to this Report and

Recommendation by August 6, 2026, under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P.

72(b)(2).8 The Court advises the parties that failure to make timely objection to this report

7 Because the undersigned recommends granting habeas relief on the basis of Petitioner’s

INA claim, it is unnecessary to address his remaining claims.

8 Given the expedited nature of these proceedings, the undersigned has reduced the typical

objection time to Report and Recommendations. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2) advisory

and recommendation waives their right to appellate review of both factual and legal issues

contained herein. See Moore v. United States, 950 F.2d 656, 659 (10th Cir. 1991).

This Report and Recommendation disposes of all issues referred to the undersigned

Magistrate Judge and terminates the referral unless and until the matter is re-referred.

ENTERED this 30th day of July, 2026.

AMANDA L. MAXFIELD i

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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.”).