Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-02473/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-02473-0/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

17cv2473 CAB (BLM)

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

JESSICA MARTINEZ-LOPEZ,

Petitioner,

v.

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, et al.,

Respondents.

Case No.: 17cv2473 CAB (BLM)

ORDER GRANTING PETITION 

FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

On December 11, 2017, Petitioner Jessica Martinez-Lopez filed a petition for writ 

of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2241, requesting that the Court compel the 

Respondents to appear and show cause why she should not be immediately granted a 

bond hearing to determine whether she may be released from the custody of Immigration 

and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”). [Doc. No. 1.] On January 4, 2018, Respondent filed 

a return to the petition contending that the petition should be denied because Petitioner 

failed to exhaust administrative remedies. [Doc. No. 9.] On January 9, 2018, Petitioner 

filed a reply to the return. [Doc. No. 11.] For the reasons set forth below, the petition is 

GRANTED.

BACKGROUND

Jessica Martinez-Lopez is a 31-year-old native and citizen of Mexico. She first

entered the United States in 1992 at the age of five, attended school for many years and 

Case 3:17-cv-02473-CAB-BLM Document 14 Filed 01/19/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 7
2

17cv2473 CAB (BLM)

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

lived the majority of her life here. Ms. Martinez has never had any legal immigration 

status in the United States. [Doc. No 1 at 5, ¶15.]

In 2009, Ms. Martinez was arrested and placed in removal proceedings. [Doc. No. 

1 at 20-22, Notice to Appear.] She applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and 

protection under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT") on the basis of her sexual 

orientation. An immigration judge ("IJ") denied these applications, finding that the 

treatment of gays and lesbians in Mexico had changed significantly in recent years, and 

that Ms. Martinez could not show a clear probability of persecution in the future. [Doc. 

No. 1 at 5, ¶16.]

Ms. Martinez appealed the IJ' s decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals

("BIA"). The BIA agreed with the IJ and dismissed the appeal. [Doc. No. 1 at 23-27, BIA 

Decision dated 7/26/2010.] As a result, Ms. Martinez was removed to Mexico in August 

2010. [Doc. No. 1 at 5, ¶17.]

On May 19, 2012, Ms. Martinez reentered the United States. She was apprehended 

and placed in reinstatement proceedings. [Doc. No. 1 at 28-29, Reinstatement Order.]

But Ms. Martinez again expressed a fear of returning to Mexico on the basis of her sexual 

orientation, as well as her trans-gender status. An asylum officer found that she had a 

reasonable fear of persecution and referred her to an immigration judge. [Doc. No. 1 at 

30-32, Notice of Referral to Immigration Judge.]

The IJ denied Ms. Martinez's application for withholding of removal and CAT

relief. [Doc. No. 1 at 5, ¶19.] Ms. Martinez then appealed the IJ's order to the Board of 

Immigration Appeals ("BIA"), which again dismissed her appeal. [Doc. No. 1 at 33-38, 

BIA Decision dated 9/18/2014.] This time, however, Ms. Martinez appealed the BIA's 

decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. [Doc. No. 1 at 6, ¶19.]

During briefing at the Ninth Circuit, the government moved to remand Ms. 

Martinez's case to the agency in light of the Ninth Circuit's decision in AvendanoHernandez v. Lynch, 800 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 2015). [Doc. No. 1 at 6, ¶20.] In AvendanoHernandez, the Ninth Circuit held that the BIA's reliance on new laws purporting to 

Case 3:17-cv-02473-CAB-BLM Document 14 Filed 01/19/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 7
3

17cv2473 CAB (BLM)

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

protect the gay and lesbian community was a "conflation of transgender and gay 

identity," noting that "laws recognizing same sex marriage may do little to protect a 

transgender woman like Avendano-Hemandez from discrimination, police harassment, 

and violent attacks in daily life." 800 F.3d at 1080, 1082.

The Ninth Circuit granted the Government's motion to remand and sent Ms. 

Martinez's case back to the BIA. [Doc. No. 1 at 6, ¶21.] The BIA then remanded the case 

to the IJ. Id.

On remand, the IJ expressed confusion over the BIA's decision to remand, stating 

that it was unclear what exactly the BIA was tasking the IJ to do. [Doc. No. 1 at 39-44,

Findings, Oral Decision, and Order of the IJ at 2, dated 1111/2017.] Although Ms. 

Martinez testified that she had contracted HIV since her previous asylum application was 

denied, the IJ found that this did not affect Ms. Martinez's eligibility for relief. See id. at 

3-4. Accordingly, the IJ again denied Ms. Martinez's applications for withholding of 

removal and CAT on January 11, 2017. See id. at 4.

Ms. Martinez again appealed to the BIA. On August 22, 2017, the BIA remanded 

Martinez's case to the IJ with instructions to re-evaluate the claim in light of AvendanoHernandez, as well as other recent Ninth Circuit precedent. [Doc. No. 1 at 45-48, BIA 

Decision dated 8/22/2017.]

Ms. Martinez was scheduled for a hearing in front of the IJ on January 9,

2018. [Doc. No. 9-1 at 51.]1

From approximately May 2013 to April 2017, Ms. Martinez was released on an

order of supervision and thus not detained in immigration custody. But in April 2017, 

Martinez pled guilty to California Penal Code section 415 (disturbing the peace). [Doc. 

No. 9-1 at 42-46.] Martinez was then transferred to ICE custody. [Doc. No. 9-1 at 47-

49.]

 

1 The parties have not informed the Court as to the outcome of that hearing.

Case 3:17-cv-02473-CAB-BLM Document 14 Filed 01/19/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 7
4

17cv2473 CAB (BLM)

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

In October 2017-after she had been detained for six months-Ms. Martinez

requested a bond hearing before the IJ. [Doc. No. 1 at 7, ¶26.] The IJ denied Ms. 

Martinez's bond request, stating that the IJ lacked jurisdiction to set a bond. [Doc. No. 1 

at 49, Order of the IJ With Respect to Custody, 10/19/2017.]

Ms. Martinez has now been held in immigration custody for approximately eight

months. During this time, she continues to suffer from numerous health issues as a result 

of her HIV status. [Doc. No. 1 at 7, ¶27.]

Ms. Martinez's immigration case will not be resolved anytime in the near future.

Even if the IJ were to render her a decision in her case on January 9, 2018, her case will 

continue at the BIA and the Ninth Circuit. In other words, in the absence of a bond 

determination, Ms. Martinez may remain detained in immigration custody for several 

months or years. [Doc. No. 1 at 7, ¶28.]

DISCUSSION

In general, once a noncitizen receives a final order of removal, the government has 

90 days in which to physically deport her. 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(l)(A). These 90 days are 

known as the "removal period." Id. During this "removal period," the noncitizen is 

subject to mandatory detention. 8 U.S.C. § 123 l(a)(l )(C). But if the government does 

not physically deport the noncitizen during the 90 days of the removal period, the 

noncitizen is no longer subject to mandatory detention. See 8 U.S.C. § 123l(a)(6). In 

Diouf v. Napolitano, 634 F.3d 1081, 1086 (9th Cir. 2011)(Diouf II), the Ninth Circuit 

held that aliens facing prolonged detention under 8 U.S.C. §1231(a)(6) are entitled to a 

bond hearing.

Here, Petitioner contends, and Respondent does not dispute, that she is being held 

pursuant to Section 1231(a)(6). Respondent also does not dispute that Petitioner has been 

detained for over six months and is therefore eligible for a bond hearing under Diouf II. 

[See Doc. No. 9 at 5.] Rather, Respondent argues that the petition should be denied 

pursuant to the prudential exhaustion rule because Petitioner failed to appeal the denial of 

her bond hearing to the BIA. [Doc. No. 9 at 5-7.]

Case 3:17-cv-02473-CAB-BLM Document 14 Filed 01/19/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 7
5

17cv2473 CAB (BLM)

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 Ninth Circuit “require[s], as a prudential matter, that habeas petitioners 

exhaust available judicial and administrative remedies before seeking relief under 

§2241.” Castro-Cortez v. INS, 239 F.3d 1037, 1047 (9th Cir. 2001). Specifically, “courts 

may require prudential exhaustion if (1) agency expertise makes agency consideration 

necessary to generate a proper record and reach a proper decision; (2) relaxation of the 

requirement would encourage the deliberate bypass of the administrative scheme; and (3) 

administrative review is likely to allow the agency to correct its own mistakes and to 

preclude the need for judicial review.” Puga v. Chertoff, 488 F.3d 812, 815 (9th Cir. 

2007) (internal quotation marks omitted). However, courts may waive the prudential 

exhaustion requirement if “administrative remedies are inadequate or not efficacious, 

pursuit of administrative remedies would be a futile gesture, irreparable injury will result, 

or the administrative proceedings would be void.” Laing v. Ashcroft, 370 F.3d 994, 1000 

(9th Cir. 2004) (quoting SEC v. G.C. George Sec., Inc., 637 F.2d 685, 688 (9th Cir. 

1981)).

Respondent argues that Petitioner failed to appeal her bond hearing denial to the 

BIA, and has failed to show that appeal to the BIA would be futile. Thus, argues 

Respondent, under the prudential exhaustion rule, her petition should be denied. [Doc. 

No. 9 at 5-7.]

It is undisputed that Petitioner did not appeal the latest denial of a bond hearing to 

the BIA. However, failure to appeal to the BIA is not necessarily fatal to Petitioner’s 

claim. See Hernandez v. Sessions, 872 F.3d 976, 989 (9th Cir. 2017)(failure of 

petitioners to appeal IJ’s determination of bond amount to BIA waived where several 

exceptions to the prudential exhaustion rule applied).

As Petitioner points out, several of the exceptions to the prudential exhaustion rule 

apply to Petitioner and weigh in favor of waiving the requirement. First, “an 

administrative record is not necessary to resolve . . . purely legal issues presented . . . “ 

Id. at 989. Here, the sole legal question is whether the IJ had jurisdiction to grant a bond 

Case 3:17-cv-02473-CAB-BLM Document 14 Filed 01/19/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 7
6

17cv2473 CAB (BLM)

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

hearing. As Petitioner has shown, and Respondent does not contest, Petitioner is eligible 

for a bond hearing under Diouf II. 

Second, it appears that pursuit of administrative remedies would be a “futile 

gesture.” Laing v. Ashcroft, 370 F.3d at 1000. While neither of the parties have found 

any post-Diouf II BIA decisions on this issue in the Ninth Circuit, Petitioner has cited to 

numerous district court decisions that have held that identically-situated noncitizens have 

a right to a bond hearing, and at least three where the petitions were initiated after the 

BIA denied the noncitizen’s appeal of the denial of a bond hearing based upon lack of 

jurisdiction. [Doc. No. 11 at 4-5 (citations omitted).] For example, in Bahena v. Aitken, 

2017 WL 2797802, at *1 (E.D. Cal. June 28, 2017), the petitioner was in a “postremoval” status and was being detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §1231(a)(6) while awaiting 

a hearing on his request to defer his removal under CAT. The petitioner filed a motion 

for custody redetermination contending he was entitled to bond while awaiting his 

hearing (as he had already been detained more than 6 months). The Immigration Judge 

denied his request for custody redetermination for lack of jurisdiction. The petitioner 

appealed the IJ’s decision to the BIA and the appeal was denied. Id. 

See also Borjas-Calix v. Sessions, 2017 WL 1491629, at *2 (D. Ariz. Apr. 26, 

2017)(stating that the BIA “issued its decision finding that Plaintiff was not eligible for a 

custody redetermination hearing”); Lopez v. Napolitano, 2014 WL 1091336, at *2 (E.D. 

Cal. Mar. 18, 2014)(“Petitioner appealed the denial of the bond hearing to the Board of 

Immigration Appeals, and on August 1, 2012, the Board denied the appeal, agreeing with 

the reasoning of the Immigration Judge that reinstatement aliens are ineligible for bond 

hearings.”). Given there have been at least three post-Diouf II cases where the BIA 

affirmed the denial of a bond hearing (based on lack of jurisdiction) in a post-removal 

case, exhaustion of administrative remedies would be futile.

Finally, requiring Petitioner to exhaust administrative remedies may lead to 

irreparable harm. Petitioner states, and Respondent does not dispute, that she is HIV 

positive and frequently receives inadequate medical care at the detention center, which 

Case 3:17-cv-02473-CAB-BLM Document 14 Filed 01/19/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 7
7

17cv2473 CAB (BLM)

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

could have long-term effects on her medical condition and could be exacerbated if she 

were required to wait an additional six months to appeal her bond denial to the BIA. See 

Villalta v. Sessions, 2017 WL 4355182, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 2, 2017)(“The Court agrees 

that Petitioner may suffer irreparable harm if unable to secure immediate judicial 

consideration of his claim.”)(quotations omitted). Therefore, exhaustion of 

administrative remedies is waived, and Petitioner is entitled to a bond hearing.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, the Court finds the Petition for Writ of Habeas 

Corpus is GRANTED. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED:

1. Within 14 days of this order, Respondents must provide Petitioner a hearing 

before an IJ in which the government bears the burden to demonstrate that 

Petitioner is either a flight risk or a danger to society;

2. If the government fails to show that Petitioner poses either a danger or a flight 

risk, the IJ shall set a reasonable bond for Petitioner’s release pending the 

conclusion of her withholding of removal and CAT case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.2

Dated: January 19, 2018

 

2 Petitioner’s renewed motion for appointment of counsel [Doc. No. 13] is DENIED AS MOOT. 

However, the Court is concerned that the previous orders that were mailed to Petitioner were returned as 

undeliverable. [Doc. No. 7, 8 and 10.] Therefore, the CLERK OF THE COURT shall electronically 

deliver a copy of this order to Kara Hartzler, Esq., at kara_hartzler@fd.org, in addition to mailing a copy 

to the Petitioner.

Case 3:17-cv-02473-CAB-BLM Document 14 Filed 01/19/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of 7