Monjaraz v. Casey et al

1
26-cv-47-RSH-MMP
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
ARMANDO MONJARAZ,
Petitioner,
v.
CHRISTOPHER J. LAROSE, Senior Warden,
Otay Mesa Detention Center, et al.,
Respondents.
Case No.: 26-cv-47-RSH-MMP
ORDER DENYING
PETITIONER’S MOTION TO
ENFORCE
[ECF No. 9]
On January 5, 2026, petitioner Armando Monjaraz filed a petition for writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (the “Petition”). ECF No. 1. Petitioner argued that
rather than being subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A), he is
entitled to a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). Id. ¶ 41. On January 22, 2026, the
Court granted the petition, and directed Respondents “to arrange a bond hearing for
petitioner … before an immigration court pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a)” within seven
days. ECF No. 8 at 2.
On February 2, 2026, Petitioner filed a motion to enforce the Court’s order of
January 22, 2026. ECF No. 9. That motion is fully briefed. ECF Nos. 12, 13.
In his motion, Petitioner states that he received a bond hearing before an immigration
judge on January 29, 2025, at which the immigration judge denied bond upon determining
Case 3:26-cv-00047-RSH-MMP Document 14 Filed 02/20/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 1 of 2

2
26-cv-47-RSH-MMP
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 Petitioner was a flight risk. ECF No. 9 at 2. Petitioner asserts that in reaching this
conclusion, the immigration judge “applied an irrebuttable presumption” that Petitioner is
a flight risk, and “failed to provide a meaningful individual custody determination.” ECF
No. 9 at 3, 4. Neither party has provided the Court a full transcript of the bond hearing, but
Petitioner’s brief includes a portion of the transcript. That portion concludes, “the court is
finding that there is no amount of bond that would mitigate the flight risk.” Id. at 3.
Petitioner argues that such a statement “reflects the application of an irrebuttable
presumption.” Id. Respondents argue, among other things, that Petitioner should be
required to exhaust his claims that the immigration judge erred. ECF No. 12 at 2-6.
Petitioner’s reply brief clarifies that Petitioner only seeks enforcement of the Court’s order
of January 22, 2026; and does not seek review of the immigration judge’s weighing of the
evidence, or argue that the immigration judge abused her discretion. ECF No. 13 at 2.
Based on the Court’s review of the portion of transcript that Petitioner provided, the
immigration judge did not apply an irrebuttable presumption of detention in Petitioner’s
case. The statement that “the court is finding that there is no amount of bond that would
mitigate the flight risk” is a finding at the end of a discussion of Petitioner’s bond request—
that is, it is a conclusion—rather than a presumption made in lieu of considering the
request. The additional arguments presented in Petitioner’s motion to enforce would
effectively ask this Court to review the immigration court’s weighing of the evidence,
which Petitioner disclaims in his reply brief, and which the Court is unwilling to do in the
context of the relief previously ordered here. Petitioner’s motion to enforce [ECF No. 9] is
therefore DENIED. This ruling is without prejudice to Petitioner seeking review of the
immigration judge’s custody determination through administrative channels.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 20, 2026
____________________
Hon. Robert S. Huie
United States District Judge
Case 3:26-cv-00047-RSH-MMP Document 14 Filed 02/20/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 2 of 2