Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00073/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00073-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 540
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Mandamus and Other
Cause of Action: 28:2241fd Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal)

---

1

17cv73-CAB-KSC

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FRANCISCO C. MENDEZ JIMENEZ,

Petitioner,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY,

Respondent.

Case No.: 17cv73-CAB-KSC

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION

On January 11, 2017, Petitioner Francisco C. Mendez Jimenez filed a petition for 

writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging his continued detention 

in the custody of Respondent. [Doc. No. 1.] On March 24, 2017, Respondent 

Department of Homeland Security filed a return to the petition. [Doc. No. 9.] On April 

5, 2017, Petitioner filed a reply to the return. [Doc. No. 10.] For the reasons set forth 

below, the Petition is DISMISSED.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Petitioner is a native and citizen of Guatemala who immigrated to the United States 

on or about January 12, 2000. [Ex. A, Doc. No. 9-1 at 4.] He is now in removal 

proceedings for the second time. The first time, he was charged with deportability on the 

Case 3:17-cv-00073-CAB-KSC Document 11 Filed 04/13/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 5
2

17cv73-CAB-KSC

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

basis of 2011 and 2013 convictions for grand theft, and on June 4, 2014, the Immigration 

Judge (“IJ”) granted him relief from removal. [Exs. B, E, Doc. No. 9-1 at 6-8, 21-23.]

On July 30, 2015, Petitioner was convicted of a 2014 assault with force likely to 

cause great bodily injury in violation of Calif. Penal Code (CPC) § 245(a)(4) and was 

sentenced to three years in prison. [Ex. C, Doc. No. 9-1 at 9-16.] Upon his release from 

prison on May 4, 2016, DHS placed him in removal proceedings and charged him with 

deportability under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) as an alien convicted of an aggravated 

felony as defined by 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(F) (crime of violence). [Ex. D, Doc. No. 9-1 

at 17-20.] On October 21, 2016, DHS added an additional charge of deportability under 

8 U.S.C. §1227(a)(2)(A)(ii) for two or more convictions for crimes involving moral 

turpitude, based on the 2015 conviction, plus the 2013 conviction for grand theft of a 

person. [Ex. E, Doc. No. 9-1 at 21-23.]

On May 20, 2016, Petitioner was afforded a bond redetermination hearing at which 

the IJ ruled that his 2015 conviction constituted an aggravated felony and that he was 

therefore subject to mandatory detention pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c). [Exs. F, G, H, 

Doc. No. 9-1 at 24-42.] The IJ ruled that Petitioner’s conviction was substantially similar 

to the conviction in United States v. Grajeda, 581 F.3d 1186 (9th Cir. 2009), in which the 

Ninth Circuit held that a conviction for CPC § 245(a)(1), assault with a deadly weapon or 

instrument other than a firearm, was categorically an aggravated felony crime of 

violence. [Ex. G, Doc. No. 9-1 at 28-31.] The IJ also noted that Petitioner would become 

eligible for a bond redetermination hearing on October 18, 2016, pursuant to Rodriguez v. 

Robbins, 804 F.3d 1060, 1089 (9th Cir. 2015)(“Rodriguez III”). [Doc. No. 9-1 at 28.] 

Petitioner appealed to BIA which, on October 4, 2016, affirmed the IJ’s ruling. [Ex. I, 

Doc. No. 9-1 at 43-47.]

On December 28, 2016, Petitioner was afforded a bond hearing pursuant to 

Rodriguez III, which applies to aliens, like Petitioner, who are held in mandatory 

detention for more than six months pending the administrative phase of their removal 

proceedings. [Exs. J, K, Doc. No. 9-1 at 48-54.] The IJ applied the appropriate factors

Case 3:17-cv-00073-CAB-KSC Document 11 Filed 04/13/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 5
3

17cv73-CAB-KSC

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

and found that DHS had established by clear and convincing evidence that Petitioner was 

a danger to the community. [Doc. No. 9-1 at 52-53.] Petitioner appealed from the IJ’s 

bond decision to the BIA, and the appeal remains pending.

Petitioner’s next hearing in his removal proceedings is scheduled for April 14,

2017. [Declaration of Caroline Prime, Doc. No. 9-1 at 2, ¶ 3.]

DISCUSSION

Petitioner challenges the Immigration Judge’s (IJ’s) December 28, 2016 custody 

determination based on his assumption that the IJ denied bond because his 2015 

conviction was for an aggravated felony. [Doc. No. 1.] Such a ruling was made by the IJ 

in previous bond proceedings, on May 20, 2016, and the Board of Immigration Appeals 

(BIA) affirmed the IJ’s ruling on October 4, 2016. Those rulings were rendered moot 

when Petitioner subsequently became eligible for bond review under Rodriguez III. 

Petitioner was afforded a bond hearing on December 28, 2016, pursuant to Rodriguez III, 

and the IJ ruled that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) had met its burden to 

show that Petitioner posed a danger to the community and should therefore remain in 

custody pending his removal proceedings. Petitioner appealed from that decision to the 

BIA, and the appeal remains pending.

Petitioner has not made a colorable constitutional claim regarding his current bond 

proceedings. See Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1196, 1200-01. He argues that his conviction 

for CPC § 245(a)(4) does not constitute a crime of violence, but that determination was 

made in previous bond proceedings and is not material in his current bond proceedings. 

Even if Petitioner were to amend his petition to challenge his previous bond proceedings, 

they have been rendered moot by his current bond proceedings in which he is being 

considered for release pursuant to Rodriguez III.

Petitioner also contends that the IJ did not mention or acknowledge his motion for 

a bond hearing under Rodriguez III [Doc. 1 at 10; Doc. 6], but this is incorrect. [See Doc. 

No. 9-1 at 28.] Petitioner also fails to raise any legal or constitutional challenges to the 

IJ’s application of factors at his Rodriguez III bond hearing. See Matter of Guerra, 24 I. 

Case 3:17-cv-00073-CAB-KSC Document 11 Filed 04/13/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 5
4

17cv73-CAB-KSC

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

& N. Dec. 37, 40 (BIA 2006). In the Rodriguez III hearing, the IJ ruled that, because of 

Petitioner’s entire criminal history, he poses a danger to the community. [Doc. No. 9-1 at 

52-54.] In reaching this conclusion, the IJ reasoned as follows:

The Record clearly demonstrates that he was convicted under CPC 

§245(a)(4) for assault with force likely to cause serious bodily injury in 

2014. The probation report submitted also demonstrates that the respondent 

has a long criminal history, including convictions for driving under the 

influence from 2001, public intoxication and disorderly conduct in 2009, 

vandalism in 2011, as well as grand theft under CPC § 487(c) in 2011 and 

2013. This criminal history not only demonstrated that the respondent has 

continued to violate the law for many years, but also demonstrated an 

escalation in the seriousness of the type of crimes he was involved in - from 

driving under the influence to theft to assault with force likely to cause great 

bodily injury or death.

[Doc. No. 9-1 at 53-54.]

Furthermore, apart from Petitioner’s failure to state a claim with respect to his 

current bond proceedings, there can be no habeas review of an IJ’s factual determinations 

and factor-weighing when making bond decisions.

The Attorney General’s discretionary judgment regarding the 

application of this section shall not be subject to review. No court may set 

aside any action or decision by the Attorney General under this section 

regarding the detention or release of any alien or the grant, revocation, or 

denial of bond or parole.

8 U.S.C. § 1226(e). See also 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) (“no court shall have 

jurisdiction to review . . . any other decision or action of the Attorney General ... the 

authority for which is specified under this subchapter to be in the discretion of the 

Attorney General.”); INS v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289, 306 (2001) (“the courts generally [do] 

not review factual determinations made by the Executive.”); Singh v. Ashcroft, 351 F.3d 

435, 439 (9th Cir. 2003) (“The scope of habeas jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is 

limited to claims that allege constitutional or statutory error in the removal process”); 

Gutierrez-Chavez v. INS, 298 F.3d 824, 827, 829-30 (9th Cir. 2002) (Habeas jurisdiction 

Case 3:17-cv-00073-CAB-KSC Document 11 Filed 04/13/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 5
5

17cv73-CAB-KSC

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

does not authorize review of “discretionary . . . decisions made by the executive branch 

that do not involve violations of the Constitution”).

Finally, apart from what the IJ determined in the current bond proceedings, they 

are now pending appeal before the BIA. Petitioner’s habeas challenge is therefore 

premature. See Castro Cortez v. INS, 239 F.3d 1037, 1047 (9th Cir. 2001) (“we require, 

as a prudential matter, that habeas petitioners exhaust available judicial and 

administrative remedies before seeking relief under § 2241.”). See also Rojas-Garcia v. 

Ashcroft, 399 F.3d 814, 819 (9th Cir. 2003) (“the petitioner must exhaust administrative 

remedies before raising the constitutional claims in a habeas petition when those claims 

are reviewable by the BIA on appeal, . . . ‘The exhaustion requirement avoids premature 

interference with the agency's processes and helps to compile a full judicial record.’”) 

(quoting Liu v. Waters, 55 F.3d 421, 424 (9th Cir. 1995)).

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, the petition is DISMISSED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 12, 2017

Case 3:17-cv-00073-CAB-KSC Document 11 Filed 04/13/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5