Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Petitioner Charlys Xavier Arenas Villamizar, a native and citizen of Venezuela, entered the United States near Nogales, Arizona on July 30, 2024, was paroled, and ordered to appear for immigration proceedings. On May 25, 2026, he was arrested by the Salt Lake County Sheriff for domestic violence in the presence of a child and damage or destruction of property. Upon release from local custody the next day, he was taken into ICE custody and charged with inadmissibility under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(7)(A)(i)(I). On June 18, 2026, he was charged in Salt Lake County with three counts of domestic violence in the presence of a child and one count of damage or destruction of property; those charges remain pending. Petitioner filed a habeas petition on June 8, 2026 (case 1:26-cv-4361). On August 5, 2026, the district court ordered respondents to provide a bond hearing before an immigration judge at which the government would bear the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that changed circumstances established petitioner was a flight risk or threat to public safety. A hearing was held on August 11, 2026, and the immigration judge denied release, finding that the Department of Homeland Security met its burden that petitioner is a threat to public safety. Petitioner did not appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals, though he was informed of the right to appeal by September 10, 2026. A master calendar hearing is scheduled for November 4, 2026.
The matter proceeded before Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72, and Local Rule 302(c)(17). The court applied the standard that habeas corpus is available to challenge custody in violation of the Constitution or federal law, citing Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, Preiser v. Rodriguez, INS v. St. Cyr, and Zadvydas v. Davis. The court recognized that district courts have habeas jurisdiction over challenges to immigration detention.
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge recommended denial of the habeas petition. First, the court held that the immigration judge's finding that petitioner is a threat to public safety must be upheld unless the court finds an abuse of discretion, citing Martinez v. Clark, 124 F.4th 775, 785 (9th Cir. 2024). The court cannot reweigh evidence but determines whether the correct standard was applied. The immigration judge identified the appropriate legal standard and found petitioner a threat to public safety based on the pending criminal charges; petitioner failed to point to anything supporting an abuse of discretion finding.
Second, the court rejected petitioner's argument that the length of his detention violates the Fifth Amendment irrespective of the danger finding. Citing Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510, 523 (2003), the court noted that detention during removal proceedings is a constitutionally adequate aspect of the deportation process. While the Supreme Court suggested that after a certain time, possibly more than six months, a detainee may be entitled to custodial review such as was ordered here, the Court has never held that a person subject to removal proceedings and found to be dangerous is entitled to release. The court recommended that the petition be denied and the case closed.
Key Takeaways
- A magistrate judge recommended denying a habeas petition challenging ICE detention where an immigration judge found the detainee a threat to public safety based on pending domestic violence charges.
- The court applied an abuse-of-discretion standard to the immigration judge's bond determination, declining to reweigh evidence and finding no abuse where the correct legal standard was applied.
- The court held that prolonged detention during removal proceedings does not violate the Fifth Amendment for a detainee found to be dangerous, relying on Demore v. Kim.
- The petitioner did not appeal the immigration judge's bond denial to the Board of Immigration Appeals despite being informed of the right to do so.
- The findings and recommendations are subject to objection within 14 days; failure to object may waive the right to appeal the district court's order.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces the deferential abuse-of-discretion standard for reviewing immigration judges' bond determinations in habeas proceedings, particularly where dangerousness findings are based on pending criminal charges. It also reaffirms that Demore v. Kim permits continued detention of dangerous noncitizens during removal proceedings without a fixed time limit triggering release, so long as custodial review has been provided. The ruling illustrates the interplay between district court habeas authority and immigration court bond proceedings in the Ninth Circuit.