Abdala Baker v. Gordon et al

1
25-cv-3539-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
HATIM ABDEL MONGY ABDALA
BAKER,
Petitioner,
v.
ADAM GORDON, et al.,
Respondents.
Case No.: 25-cv-3539-CAB-SBC
ORDER REGARDING BOND
HEARING
[Doc. No. 6]
This Court previously ordered Respondents to provide Petitioner a bond hearing.
[Doc. No. 5.] Petitioner received a bond hearing on December 31, 2025; the Immigration
Judge denied bond finding Petitioner was both a danger to the community and a flight risk.
[Doc. No. 6 at 2; Doc. No. 7.] Petitioner says that the bond hearing and resulting decision
were inadequate and asks the Court to order Respondents to provide Petitioner with a new
bond hearing “that includes an articulated evidentiary standard, individualized findings tied
to present risk, and consideration of reasonable alternatives to detention.” [Doc. No. 6 at
4.] 	Respondents counter that this request is not properly before the Court because
Petitioner has not pursued his administrative remedies via an appeal to the Board of
Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). [Doc. No. 7 at 2.]
Case 3:25-cv-03539-CAB-SBC Document 8 Filed 01/30/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 2

2
25-cv-3539-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
The 	Court 	agrees 	with 	Respondents. 	As 	the 	Ninth 	Circuit 	has 	explained,
“[Petitioner] pursued habeas review of the IJ’s adverse bond determination before
appealing to the BIA. This short cut was improper. 	[Petitioner] should have exhausted
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).
The Court therefore DISMISSES the Petition without prejudice. The Clerk of the
Court shall close the case.
It is SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 30, 2026
Case 3:25-cv-03539-CAB-SBC Document 8 Filed 01/30/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 2