Sharma v. Casey et al

- 1 - 26cv0513
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
PARDEEP SHARMA,
Petitioner,
v.
GREGORY J. ARCHAMBRAULT, et al.,
Respondents.
Case No. 26-cv-00513-BAS-SBC
ORDER:
(1) 	DENYING WITHOUT
PREJUDICE PETITION FOR
WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
(ECF No. 1); AND
(2) 	DENYING MOTION FOR
INJUNCTIVE
RELIEF (ECF No. 3)
I. 	INTRODUCTION
In a related petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, this Court granted a writ of habeas
corpus and ordered the Government to provide Petitioner Pardeep Sharma with a bond
hearing before an Immigration Judge. See Sharma v. Casey, No. 25-cv-03335-BAS-DDL
(S.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2025). The Government complied with this order, and on January 23,
2026, it provided Petitioner with that bond hearing. (Pet. ¶ 3, ECF No. 1.) The Immigration
Judge denied bond, finding Petitioner was a flight risk. 	(Id.) 	Petitioner is currently
appealing this decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”).
Case 3:26-cv-00513-BAS-SBC Document 10 Filed 02/11/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 1 of 4

- 2 - 26cv0513
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
Petitioner 	has 	now 	filed 	a 	second 	petition 	arguing 	the 	Immigration 	Judge
misallocated the burden of proof, relied on incorrect credibility findings, ignored material
evidence, and failed to consider less restrictive alternatives to detention. 	(Pet. ¶ 4; ECF
No. 1.) Petitioner also filed an ex parte Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order seeking
immediate release from custody. 	(ECF No. 3.) The Court denied the Motion for a
Temporary Restraining Order but stated it would consolidate the request for injunctive
relief with a determination on the merits. (ECF No. 6.)
The Government responded (ECF No. 8), and Petitioner filed a Traverse (ECF No.
9). For the reasons stated below, the Court agrees with the Government that Petitioner has
failed 	to 	exhaust 	his 	administrative 	remedies, 	and 	thus 	the 	Petition 	is 	DENIED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
II. 	ANALYSIS
A 	noncitizen 	facing 	immigration 	proceedings 	is 	required 	to 	exhaust 	his
administrative remedies by appealing to the BIA before seeking habeas review of an
Immigration Judge’s adverse bond determination. 	Leonardo v. Crawford, 646 F.3d 1157
(9th Cir. 2011). 	Although such exhaustion is prudential, as opposed to mandatory,
exhaustion “serves the twin purposes of protecting administrative agency authority and
promoting judicial efficiency.” 	McCarthy v. Madigan, 	503 U.S. 140, 145 (1992).
“Exhaustion concerns apply with particular force when the action under review involves
exercise of the agency’s discretionary power or when the agency proceedings in question
allow the agency to apply its special expertise.” 	Id. (citing McKart v. United States, 395
U.S. 185, 194 (1969)).
When exhaustion is prudential, “the district court must determine whether to excuse
the faulty exhaustion and reach the merits, or require the petitioner to exhaust his
administrative remedies before proceeding in court.” 	Brown v. Rison, 895 F.2d 533, 535
(9th Cir. 1991), overruled on other grounds by Reno v. Koray, 515 U.S. 50, 54–55 (1995).
Courts “have recognized at least three broad sets of circumstances in which the interests of
Case 3:26-cv-00513-BAS-SBC Document 10 Filed 02/11/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 2 of 4

- 3 - 26cv0513
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 individual weigh heavily against requiring administrative exhaustion.” McCarthy, 503
U.S. at 146. These circumstances are:
(1) where the petitioner would suffer undue prejudice if required to exhaust
administrative remedies—for example, if the petitioner faces an unreasonable or indefinite
time frame for administrative action;
(2) when there is some doubt as to whether the agency is empowered to grant
effective relief; and
(3) when the “administrative body is shown to be biased or has otherwise
predetermined the issue before it” such that exhaustion would be futile. Id. at 146–47.
In this case, Petitioner’s appeal of his bond determination is pending before the BIA.
The BIA clearly is empowered to reverse the Immigration Judge’s determinations,
including all of the errors Petitioner now alleges were made by the Immigration Judge.
Exhaustion 	would 	protect 	administrative authority 	and 	promote 	judicial 	efficiency.
Release on bond falls within the agency’s discretionary power and falls within its special
expertise. There is no evidence that the BIA appeal would not proceed in a timely fashion.
Instead, Petitioner first argues the Court should waive exhaustion because the agency
already failed to provide the constitutionally required cure ordered by this Court. 	(ECF
No. 9.) 	The Court disagrees. 	The agency followed the Court’s order and provided
Petitioner with the ordered bond hearing. 	Second, Petitioner argues that the BIA lacks
authority to enforce this Court’s habeas order or provide equitable habeas relief. 	Again,
the Court disagrees. 	The BIA has the authority to determine whether the Immigration
Judge correctly applied the law to the facts in determining whether Petitioner should or
should not be released.
Finally, Petitioner argues that exhaustion would be futile and ineffective because the
agency has purged and transformed the BIA to the point where it no longer operates as a
true appellate process but instead simply rubber stamps the Government’s position. (ECF
No. 9.) Although Petitioner presents some compelling statistics, the Court is not prepared
Case 3:26-cv-00513-BAS-SBC Document 10 Filed 02/11/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 3 of 4

- 4 - 26cv0513
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
to find that appeal to any BIA judge is necessarily futile. 	Hence, the Court declines to
waive exhaustion.
III. 	CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the
Petition (ECF No. 1) and DENIES the Motion for Injunctive Relief (ECF No. 3). 	The
Clerk is directed to close the case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: February 11, 2026
Hon. Cynthia Bashant, Chief Judge
United States District Court
Case 3:26-cv-00513-BAS-SBC Document 10 Filed 02/11/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 4 of 4