Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01717/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01717-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 463
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus - Alien Detainee
Cause of Action: 

---

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

PEDRO RIVAS HERNANDEZ,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 15-cv-1717-WQH-BGS

ORDER

v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, U.S. Attorney

General; et al.,

Respondents.

HAYES, Judge:

The matters before the Court are the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF

No. 1) and the Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 32) Corpus filed

by Petitioner Pedro Rivas Hernandez (“Petitioner”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (ECF

No. 32). 

I. Background

Petitioner is a Mexican national who entered the United States in 1985. (ECF

No. 1). Petitioner’s wife is a lawful permanent resident and they have two children who

are citizens of the United States. Id. In 1988, Petitioner applied as a Special

Agricultural Worker under the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. Id. at 12. 

His application was denied on September 12, 2002. Id. 

 In 2007, the U.S. Immigration Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) agency arrested

Petitioner. Id. at 3. On April 24, 2007, Petitioner was placed in removal proceedings. 

(ECF No. 4 at 2). On May 16, 2007, an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) ordered Petitioner

- 1 - 15-cv-1717-WQH-BGS

Case 3:15-cv-01717-WQH-BGS Document 37 Filed 06/20/16 Page 1 of 7
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

removed. Id. Petitioner was removed on May 23, 2007. Id. 

Petitioner unlawfully re-entered the United States and was removed four times

under a reinstatement of the May 16, 2007 removal order. (ECF No. 4-1 at 10). In

November 2013, Petitioner re-entered the United States and, on November 13, 2013,

Petitioner was taken into custody at Imperial County Jail. (ECF No. 1 at 13). On

November 15, 2013, Petitioner filed an Emergency Stay of Deportation with the Ninth

Circuit, case no. 13-73976, obtaining an automatic temporary stay of removal. (ECF

No. 4 at 2; ECF No. 4-1 at 2-5). 

On January 3, 2014, ICE interviewed Petitioner. (ECF No. 1 at 13). ICE

processed Petitioner for reinstatement of removal. Id. at 25. On April 14, 2014,

Petitioner was interviewed by an asylum officer who found a positive reasonable fear

and issued a Form I-863 to place Petitioner in withholding-only proceedings before an

IJ. Id. at 13; ECF No.5-3 at 2 (Form 1-863). 

In July 2014, Petitioner applied for a bond redetermination hearing pursuant to

Rodriguez v. Robbins, 715 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 2013). (ECF No. 1 at 15). On

September 19, 2014, after continuances, an IJ held the bond redetermination hearing

“under the rule in Rodriguez.” (ECF No. 4-1 at 8). On September 22, 2014, the Ninth

Circuit dismissed Petitioner’s appeal, case no. 13-73976, for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction. Id. at 5. On September 22, 2014, an IJ denied Petitioner’s application for

asylum relief. Id. at 6. 

On October 29, 2014, an IJ issued a written decision denying Petitioner’s request

for release on bond. (ECF No. 4-1). The IJ found that the Department of Homeland

Security had established, by clear and convincing evidence, that “the respondent [is]

both a danger and a flight risk.” Id. at 8. On January 23, 2015, the BIA dismissed

Petitioner’s appeal of the IJ’s decision to deny bond. (ECF No 4 at 3). The BIA stated,

“Because we affirm the Immigration Judge on the issue of flight risk, we need not

address his conclusion that the respondent is also a danger to the community.” (ECF

No. 4-1 at 19). 

- 2 - 15-cv-1717-WQH-BGS

Case 3:15-cv-01717-WQH-BGS Document 37 Filed 06/20/16 Page 2 of 7
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

On March 4, 2015, the BIA upheld the IJ’s decision to deny Petitioner’s

application for asylum relief and dismissed Petitioner’s appeal. Id. at 26. On March

13, 2015, the temporary stay in case no. 13-73976 terminated. Id. at 5. On March 30,

2015, Petitioner appealed the denial of his asylum relief to the Ninth Circuit, case no.

15-70966, obtaining an automatic stay of removal. (Case No. 15-70966, ECF No. 1).

On August 3, 2015, Petitioner filed the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in this

Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (ECF No. 1). Petitioner contended that he is

entitled to a writ of habeas corpus because he had been unreasonably detained pending

the outcome of his challenges to his removal order. Id. at 26. Petitioner contended that

Respondents violated his due process rights by failing to provide him a bond hearing

pursuant to Casas-Castrillon v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 535 F.3d 942 (9th Cir. 2008). 

Id. at 25. Petitioner also contended that his Rodriguez bond hearing was procedurally

deficient and violated his due process rights. (ECF No. 5-1 at 2). Petitioner requested

that the Court order Respondents to release him from custody or, alternatively, direct

the Respondents to provide a Casas bond hearing with a different IJ than the one that

presided at the 2014 bond hearing. (ECF No. 5 at 6). On September 8, 2015,

Respondents filed the Return to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. (ECF No. 4). 

On September 16, 2015, the Ninth Circuit filed an order referring Petitioner’s

case no. 15-70966 to the “circuit mediator for determination of whether petition may

be eligible for an I-601A waiver and to explore possible settlement options.” (ECF No.

5-5 at 2).1

 

On October 15, 2015, this Court held a hearing. (ECF No. 11). Counsel for

Respondents stated, “A Casas hearing is really no different than a Rodriguez hearing,

as far as the burden and the standard, but if [Petitioner] would request one, a Casas

hearing, because he now has a petition for review pending, he would get one, so right

1

 Petitioner’s review before the Ninth Circuit is currently pending. A mediation conference was initially scheduled for February 23, 2016. That conference was rescheduled to May 16, 2017. There is a further conference scheduled for August 4,

2016 as well as a pending briefing schedule. See Hernandez v. Loretta E. Lynch, No.

15-70966. 

- 3 - 15-cv-1717-WQH-BGS

Case 3:15-cv-01717-WQH-BGS Document 37 Filed 06/20/16 Page 3 of 7
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

now it doesn’t have to be ordered by the Court.” (ECF No. 12 at 9-10). After the

hearing, the Court stayed Petitioner’s writ of habeas corpus and ordered the parties to

submit a report regarding the status of Petitioner’s request for a new bond hearing. 

(ECF No. 13). 

On November 20, 2015, Petitioner received a second bond hearing before an IJ. 

(ECF No. 20-1 at 2 ). The IJ denied a change in Petition’s custody status finding that

petitioner was a danger to the community and posed a flight risk. Id; ECF No. 29-1 at

6-19. On December 21, 2015, Petitioner appealed to the BIA. On April 15, 2016, the

BIA issued its bond decision upholding the IJ’s bond determination. (ECF No. 29-1 at

3-5). 

On May 16, 2016, Petitioner amended his habeas petition. (ECF No. 32). On

May 31, 2016, Respondents filed a return. (ECF No. 34). On June 8, 2016, Petitioner

filed a traverse. (ECF No. 36). 

II. Standard of Review

A federal court may grant a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2241 if a federal petitioner can demonstrate that he “is in custody in violation

of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a), (c)(3). 

The district court reviews bond hearing determination for constitutional claims and

legal error. Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1196, 1200 (9th Cir. 2011). 

III. Discussion 

Petitioner contends that he is entitled to a writ of habeas corpus because he has

been unreasonably detained pending the outcome of his challenges to his removal order. 

(ECF No. 32 at 18). Petitioner contends that Respondents have violated his due process

rights because the evidence presented at the bond hearing cannot support the IJ’s

finding that the government met its burden of clear and convincing evidence that

Petitioner is a danger to the community and a flight risk. Petitioner contends that the

IJ “abused his discretion” by giving too much weight to his past DUI convictions in

determining that he poses a danger to the community. Id. at 20. Petitioner contends

- 4 - 15-cv-1717-WQH-BGS

Case 3:15-cv-01717-WQH-BGS Document 37 Filed 06/20/16 Page 4 of 7
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

that there is “not one smidgen of possibility” that Respondent would be a flight risk.

Id. at 32. Petitioner contends that his continued detention without bond also violates

the Excessive Bail Clause of the Eighth Amendment. Id. at 25. Petitioner requests that

the Court grant his petition for a writ of habeas corpus and order his release on his own

recognizance or upon reasonable bail. Id. at 36. Alternatively, Petitioner requests that

the Court order an evidentiary hearing to determine whether “the Government’s

contentions that [Petitioner] is a flight risk or danger to the community has ‘sufficiently

strong justification’ to continue his already prolonged and unlawful detention.” (ECF

No. 36 at 28). 

Respondents contend that Petitioner’s bond hearing was constitutionally sound.

Respondents contend that the IJ’s “discretionary weighing process” is not subject to

habeas review. (ECF No. 34 at 1). 

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has held that aliens facing prolonged

detentions after their removal order becomes administratively final, but while their

review petition is pending, are entitled to a bond hearing before a neutral immigration

judge. Casas-Castrillon, 535 F.3d at 950. In a bond hearing, “the government must

prove by clear and convincing evidence that an alien is a flight risk or a danger to the

community to justify denial of bond . . . .” Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1196, 1203 (9th

Cir. 2011). “[I]n considering whether the government has proven dangerousness, IJs

should consider the factors identified in In re Guerra, 24 I. & N. Dec. 37 (B.I.A.2006),

which include the extensiveness of an alien’s criminal record, the recency of his

criminal activity, and the seriousness of his offenses.” Rodriguez v. Robbins, 715 F.3d

1127, 1135 (9th Cir. 2013). “An Immigration Judge has broad discretion in deciding

the factors that he or she may consider in custody redeterminations. The Immigration

Judge may choose to give greater weight to one factor over others, as long as the

decision is reasonable.” In Re Guerra, 24 I. & N. Dec. at 40. “The determination of

the Immigration Judge as to custody status or bond may be based upon any information

that is available to the Immigration Judge or that is presented to him or her by the alien

- 5 - 15-cv-1717-WQH-BGS

Case 3:15-cv-01717-WQH-BGS Document 37 Filed 06/20/16 Page 5 of 7
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

or the Service.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.19(d). 

In determining whether Petitioner was entitled to bond, the IJ looked at several

factors including Petitioner’s criminal record. The IJ focused on Petitioner’s three DUI

convictions from 2001, 2004, and 2012, which Petitioner conceded had occurred.2

 The

IJ considered the seriousness of Petitioner’s crimes, their frequency, and their recency. 

The IJ found that “there is a present danger reflected in the facts of this record based on

the respondent’srecidivistrecord as an individual who was willing to engage in conduct

of driving under the influence or that he was unable to refrain from the conduct of

driving under the influence.” (ECF No. 29-1 at 10). The IJ noted that “repeated driving

under the influence is a dangerous conduct.” Id. at 12. The IJ also noted that Petitioner

had several other convictions, including receiving stolen property in 1991, taking a

vehicle without the owner’s consent, prostitution in 2004, theft, and a failure to appear

on the theft charge in 2005. Id. at 9. On appeal, the BIA upheld the IJ’s determination,

noting that one of the DUI’s occurred “as recently as 2012.” Id. at 4. The BIA

concluded that the IJ “properly found that the respondent’s recidivist record of DUI

renders him a danger to the community.” Both the IJ and the BIA noted Petitioner’s

rehabilitation efforts, including his attendance at Alcoholics Anonymous meetings. The

IJ found that it could not release Petitioner based on those improvement, which

“perhaps make [him] less of a danger than at his prior bond hearing,” because under

Board of Immigration Appeals precedent “a lesser degree of dangerousness does not

merit release.” Id. at 15; see also Matter of Urena, 25 I. & N. Dec. 140, 141 (BIA

2009) (“An Immigration Judge should only set a bond if he first determines that the

alien does not present a danger to the community.”). 

The IJ also determined that Petitioner was a “flight risk,” finding

the respondent’s length of detention, the presence of his family members,

2

 Petitioner contends that Respondents did not prove that Petitioner was a danger to the community by clear and convincing evidence because Respondents only

presented a RAP sheet, not certified records. However, Petitioner also conceded that

he had been convicted three times. See ECF No. 29-1 at 10. The IJ and the BIA did not

err in considering Petitioner’s convictions. 

- 6 - 15-cv-1717-WQH-BGS

Case 3:15-cv-01717-WQH-BGS Document 37 Filed 06/20/16 Page 6 of 7
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

the prospect of employment, the approval of the visa petition, which does

not provide a path of adjustment until the respondent stays out of the

United States for ten years, and the respondent’s very recent attempts at

bettering himself through AA, anger management and the primary and

secondary classes do not outweigh the lengthy and insistent record that the

respondent produced showing his lack of respect for the immigration law

of this country and his refusal to abide by the orders in his own case. 

(ECF No. 29-1 at 17-18). The IJ considered alternatives to detention, but found that the

Board of Immigration Appeals precendent indicates that where there is a finding of

danger to the community, “the respondent shall not be released from custody.” Id. at

16. 

The Court concludes that the IJ was within his discretionary authority in

concluding that the government had shown, by clear and convincing evidence, that

Petitioner was a danger to the community and a flight risk. The IJ considered the

relevant factors and applied the correct legal standard. 

IV. Conclusion

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF

No. 1) and the Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 32) are denied. 

The Clerk of court shall close the case. 

DATED: June 20, 2016

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

- 7 - 15-cv-1717-WQH-BGS

Case 3:15-cv-01717-WQH-BGS Document 37 Filed 06/20/16 Page 7 of 7