Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01289/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01289-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Fernando Miguel Garcia, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Katrina Kane, Field Office Director 

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-07-1289-PHX-DGC (JJM)

ORDER

Petitioner Fernando Garcia has filed a motion to reopen this case. Dkt. #28. United

States Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Marshall has issued a supplemental report and

recommendation (“R&R”) that the Court deny the motion. Dkt. #30. Petitioner has filed an

objection. Dkt. #31. For reasons that follow, the Court will accept the supplemental R&R

and deny Petitioner’s motion.

I. Background.

Petitioner is a native and citizen of El Salvador. He became a lawful permanent

resident of the United States in 1990. He is in federal custody pending resolution of an order

of removal issued by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). See Dkt. #11-2 at 10-12.

Petitioner commenced this action by filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Dkt. #1. Magistrate Judge Marshall issued an R&R

recommending that the Court grant the petition and direct Respondent to provide Petitioner

with a bond hearing before an immigration judge (“IJ”). Dkt. #20. The Court accepted the

R&R (Dkt. #21) and the Clerk entered judgment accordingly (Dkt. #22). 

Case 2:07-cv-01289-DGC Document 32 Filed 01/22/10 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

Petitioner subsequently received a bond hearing. See Dkt. #23. The IJ found

Petitioner to be a flight risk and ordered him released from custody upon posting a $40,000

bond. Dkt. #25 at 5-8. The BIA affirmed. Dkt. #28 at 17.

II. Discussion.

Petitioner challenges the bond amount as excessively high. Specifically, Petitioner

seeks to reopen this case on the ground that the IJ’s decision “was not based on fact and more

importantly, did not, as a matter of law, establish clear and convincing evidence that

Petitioner is a flight risk or a danger.” Dkt. #28 at 1; see Dkt. ##24, 25. The supplemental

R&R concludes that Petitioner’s motion to reopen should be denied because the Court, under

8 U.S.C. § 1226(e), has “no authority to entertain a challenge to the IJ’s ‘discretionary

assessment of the bond amount required to secure Petitioner’s presence at removal

[proceedings].’” Dkt. #30 at 4 (quoting Prieto-Romero v. Clark, 534 F.3d 1053, 1067 (9th

Cir. 2008)). 

The Court may accept, reject, or modify the findings and recommendations made by

the Magistrate Judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). The Court must

undertake a de novo review of those portions of the R&R to which specific objections are

made. Id.; see Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia,

328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003).

Petitioner does not specifically object to the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that the

Court lacks jurisdiction over Petitioner’s challenge to the bond amount. Petitioner asserts

that he “is entitled to a judicial determination as to whether the government established flight

risk or dangerousness as required by the government[’s] burden at the bail hearing” (Dkt. #31

at 2-3), but Petitioner cites no legal authority in support of this assertion.

Petitioner has obtained a judicial stay of removal from the Ninth Circuit pending

review by that court of the BIA’s order of removal. See Garcia v. Holder, No. 05-77173 (9th

Cir. Dec. 16, 2005). His continued detention during this period of judicial review is lawfully

permitted under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). “Congress has provided the Attorney General with

authority to detain [Petitioner] under § 1226(a), which gives the Attorney General a broad

Case 2:07-cv-01289-DGC Document 32 Filed 01/22/10 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 -

grant of discretionary authority to detain an alien ‘pending a decision on whether the alien

is to be removed from the United States.’” Casas-Castrillon v. DHS, 535 F.3d 942, 945 (9th

Cir. 2008). The Magistrate Judge concludes, correctly, that because Petitioner remains

lawfully detained under § 1226(a), the Court is without jurisdiction under § 1226(e) to

review the reasonableness of the bond amount even if Petitioner cannot afford to post it. Dkt.

#30 at 4 (citing Prieto-Romero, 534 F.3d at 1067). 

III. Conclusion.

Petitioner’s bond hearing “afforded [him] an adequate opportunity to challenge the

necessity of his detention.” Casas-Castrillon, 535 F.3d at 951. Petitioner asks this Court to

“second-guess the IJ’s discretionary assessment of the bond amount required to secure his

presence at removal in the event that his petition for review is denied.” Prieto-Romero, 534

F.3d at 1067. The Court “has no authority to entertain his challenge.” Id. (citing 8 U.S.C.

§ 1226(e)); see Solis v. Clark, No. C08-1453-MJP, 2009 WL 529631, at *4 (W.D. Wash.

Feb. 5, 2009). The Court will accept the supplemental R&R and deny the motion to reopen

case. 

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Marshall’s supplemental R&R (Dkt. #30) is

accepted.

2. Petitioner’s motion to reopen case (Dkt. #28) is denied.

DATED this 21st day of January, 2010.

Case 2:07-cv-01289-DGC Document 32 Filed 01/22/10 Page 3 of 3