Dina Garcia Ical (A# 221-489-305) v. Warden

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: April 28, 2026
• Docket: 1:26-cv-02344
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DINA GARCIA ICAL (A# 221-489-305), No. 1:26-cv-02344 DJC SCR 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER 14 WARDEN, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner is a federal immigration detainee proceeding pro se with a habeas corpus action 18 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge 19 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. Pending before the undersigned is 20 respondent’s request to dissolve or lift the court’s “no transfer” order. ECF No. 10. 21 The undersigned issued a briefing schedule on March 30, 2026. ECF No. 6. To ensure 22 the Court’s jurisdiction to resolve the petition, the order prevented respondent from transferring 23 petitioner to another detention center outside of this judicial district absent further order of the 24 court. ECF No. 6 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) and F.T.C. v. Dean Foods Co., 384 U.S. 597, 604 25 (1966)). In the request, respondent submitted evidence that an immigration judge (“IJ”) ordered 26 petitioner removed from the United States on April 7, 2026. ECF No. 10-1. Both petitioner and 27 the government waived appeal, which respondent asserts makes the removal order final and shifts 28 petitioner’s detention to 8 U.S.C. § 1231. ECF No. 10 at 1. ] An order of removal becomes final “only upon the earlier of (1) a BIA determination 2 | affirming the order or (11) the expiration of the deadline to seek the BIA’s review of the order.” 3 || See Ocampo v. Holder, 629 F.3d 923, 926 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(47)(B)). 4 | DHS regulations further clarify that “[e]xcept when certified to the [BIA], the decision of the [IJ] 5 || becomes final upon waiver of appeal or upon expiration of the time to appeal if no appeal is taken 6 || whichever occurs first.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.39; see also 8 C.F.R. § 1241.1(b) (order of removal 7 || becomes final “[u]pon waiver of appeal by the respondent”). Accordingly, petitioner’s order of 8 || removal is final and the authority for her detention has shifted to 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1)-(2). In 9 | light of respondent’s statutory obligation to remove petitioner within 90 days of her final order of 10 | removal, 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1)(A), the undersigned will grant respondent’s motion and allow 11 || respondent to transfer petitioner for purposes of effectuating her removal. 12 CONCLUSION 13 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 14 1. Respondent’s request to dissolve or lift the “no transfer” order (ECF No. 10) is 15 | GRANTED. 16 2. The Court’s order preventing petitioner’s transfer (ECF No. 6) is hereby LIFTED. 17 3. Respondent may transfer petitioner for the purposes of effectuating her lawful 18 | removal. 19 | DATED: April 27, 2026 20 mk 21 SEAN C. RIORDAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28