Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

1
3:25-cv-03679-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
LUIS ANTONIO RAMOS
VILLANUEVA,
Petitioner,
v.
CHRISTOPHER J. LAROSE, et al.,
Respondents.
Case No.: 3:25-cv-03679-CAB-SBC
ORDER CLOSING CASE
This Court previously ordered Respondents to provide Petitioner a bond hearing “at
which Respondents must justify his continued detention by a showing of clear and
convincing evidence that Petitioner would likely flee or pose a danger to the community if
released.” [Doc. No. 8 at 4.] Petitioner received a bond hearing on February 2, 2026; the
Immigration Judge denied bond. 	[Doc. No. 9 at 2.] 	In the parties’ joint status update,
Petitioner says that the hearing did not comply with the Court’s order and the Petitioner
was therefore “considering filing a motion under Rule 59(e) (to alter or amend a judgment)
or Rule 60(b) (for relief from a judgment or order), including asking the Court to reconsider
its order denying Petitioner’s request to be immediately released from custody.” [Id. at 2–
3.]
Case 3:25-cv-03679-CAB-SBC Document 10 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 1 of 2

2
3:25-cv-03679-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
No such motion has been filed. 	Moreover, 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). 	The Court
therefore ORDERS the Clerk of the Court to close the case.
It is SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 5, 2026
Case 3:25-cv-03679-CAB-SBC Document 10 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 2 of 2