Babayev v. Vergara et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
BROWNSVILLE DIVISION
ISLAM B., 1 §
Petitioner, §
§
v. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:26-cv-233
§
MIGUEL VERGARA, et al., §
Respondents. §
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
TO DISMISS PETITIONER’S HABEAS PETITION
Before the Court are Petitioner’s “Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Complaint
for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief” (Dkt. No. 1) (“Petition”) and “Petitioner’s Motion for
Order to Show Cause Under 28 U.S.C. § 2243” (Dkt. No. 8) (“Motion to Show Cause”). It
is recommended that the Petition be DENIED sua sponte2 for lack of jurisdiction.
“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. They possess only that power
authorized by Constitution and statute.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S.
375, 377 (1994). A court has “an independent obligation to determine whether subject-matter
jurisdiction exists,” Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 501 (2006), and, if it determines
that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, it “must dismiss the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).
The Petition asks the Court to find that Petitioner’s “continued detention is unlawful
because the bond hearing he received was constitutionally inadequate.” Dkt. No. 1 at 2. The
alleged constitutional inadequacy stems from decisions made by the Immigration Judge in
the bond hearing: first in incorrectly allocating “the burden of proof,” id. at 3, and second in
“presum[ing] flight risk solely based on Petitioner’s ability to drive,” id. at 2.
The Petition thus effectively asks this Court to review a decision committed to the
discretionary judgment of the Attorney General, which this Court cannot do under the
1 Due to significant privacy concerns in immigration cases and noting that judicial opinions are not subject
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2, any opinion, order, judgment, or other disposition in this case will
refer to the petitioner only by first name and last initial.
2 A court must dismiss a case sua sponte “when it discovers it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction.” Carver v.
Atwood, 18 F.4th 494, 497 (5th Cir. 2021).
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
March 11, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 1:26-cv-00233 Document 9 Filed 03/11/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 2

jurisdiction-stripping statutory provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act. See 8
U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii); 8 U.S.C. § 1226(e).3
Because the Court lacks jurisdiction, it is recommended that the Court (1) DENY the
Petition (Dkt. No. 1), (2) DENY the Motion to Show Cause (Dkt. No. 8) as moot, and (3)
DIRECT the Clerk of Court to close the case.
The parties have fourteen (14) days from the date of being served with a copy of this
Report and Recommendation in which to file written objections, if any, with United States
District Judge Roland Olvera 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). When filing an objection, a party must
object to specific facts or legal findings in this Report and Recommendation. The District
Judge is not required to consider frivolous, conclusive, or general objections. Battle v. United
States Parole Comm’n, 834 F.2d 419, 421 (5th Cir. 1987).
If any party fails to timely object to any factual or legal findings in this Report and
Recommendation, the District Judge is not required to conduct a de novo review of the record
before adopting these findings.
Signed on March 11, 2026.
Karen Betancourt
United States Magistrate Judge
3 See also Loa-Herrera v. Trominski, 231 F.3d 984, 991 (finding the Attorney General’s discretionary
judgment, “including the manner in which that discretionary judgment is exercised,” is not subject to review);
Kambo v. Poppell, No. SA-07-CV-800-XR, 2007 WL 3051601, at *10 (W.D. Tex. Oct. 18, 2007) (finding
that it did “not have jurisdiction to review the decision to deny release on bond”); Lopez-Arevelo v. Ripa, 801
F. Supp. 3d 668, 679 (W.D. Tex. 2025) (noting that, in a “case in which a bond hearing was held, an
individualized assessment was made regarding the appropriateness of detaining a noncitizen, and, in the IJ’s
discretion, they were denied bail,” the court “would likely lack jurisdiction to consider a collateral attack on
that denial.”).
Case 1:26-cv-00233 Document 9 Filed 03/11/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 2