Sharma v. Casey et al

1
3:26-cv-00050-CAB-SBC
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
RAHUL SHARMA,
Petitioner,
v.
JEREMY CASEY, Warden of the
Imperial Regional Detention Center, et al.,
Respondents.
Case No.: 3:26-cv-00050-CAB-SBC
ORDER DISMISSING PETITION
FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
This Court previously ordered Respondents to provide Petitioner a bond hearing.
[Doc. No. 7.] 	Petitioner received a bond hearing on January 29, 2026; the Immigration
Judge denied bond finding Petitioner posed a flight risk “and no amount of bond will
mitigate the risk.” [Doc. No. 8-1 at 1.] Petitioner has filed no objection to the outcome of
the bond hearing.1
1 Even if Petitioner had, the Ninth Circuit has explained that pursuing habeas review of an
immigration judge’s adverse bond determination before appealing to the BIA is “improper”
and Petitioner should “exhaust[] administrative remedies by appealing to the BIA before
asking the federal district court to review the IJ’s decision.” 	Leonardo v. Crawford, 646
F.3d 1157, 1160 (9th Cir. 2011).
Case 3:26-cv-00050-CAB-SBC Document 9 Filed 02/04/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 2

2
3:26-cv-00050-CAB-SBC
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
According to Petitioner, Respondents’ prior concession that Petitioner was entitled
to a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) “resolves the core dispute presented in the
Petition.” [Doc. No. 6 at 2.] The Court therefore DISMISSES the Petition with prejudice.
The Clerk of the Court shall close the case.
It is SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 4, 2026
Case 3:26-cv-00050-CAB-SBC Document 9 Filed 02/04/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 2