Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Addemys N.R. was arrested in April 2026 in Florida on a charge of aggravated battery with a deadly weapon, then transferred to Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody, where he has remained in immigration detention. In May 2026 he sought habeas relief, and the court ordered Respondents to release him unless they demonstrated, within seven days, by clear and convincing evidence at a bond hearing before a neutral decisionmaker, that he was a flight risk or danger to the community such that his physical custody was legally justified.
An immigration judge denied bond at a July 8, 2026 hearing. After the court granted in part his first motion to enforce and ordered another hearing, a different immigration judge again denied bond on August 6, 2026, finding him both a danger and a flight risk based on his pending charge, illegal entry, unclear ties to the country, and a May 22, 2026 removal order; his appeal of that decision remains pending. A second motion to enforce was denied as moot when he did not amend it. The motion now at issue is his third, seeking immediate release or a new hearing before a third immigration judge.
The Court’s Holding
The court first held that it had jurisdiction over the motion. Although 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(5) makes a court of appeals petition the exclusive means to review a removal order and § 1252(b)(9) consolidates removal-related questions into that petition, those provisions do not bar claims independent of or collateral to the removal process. Because Petitioner did not challenge his removal order but invoked the court's authority to enforce its own earlier order compelling a constitutionally adequate bond hearing, the court could consider the merits.
The court next declined to require exhaustion of administrative remedies, reiterating that there is no exhaustion requirement when the only relief sought is enforcement of the court's own prior order, and Respondents offered no reason to depart from that rule. On the merits, the court applied abuse-of-discretion review, under which it cannot reweigh evidence but may only decide whether the immigration judge applied the correct legal standard. The record showed the immigration judge cited the In Re Guerra factors, acknowledged the government's burden of proof, and weighed both positive factors (employment history, supportive letters) and negative ones (illegal entry, sponsor not residing with him, removal order unlikely to be overturned), so the flight-risk finding was not an abuse of discretion and the burden-shifting argument failed.
The court also held that the immigration judge was not required to consider alternatives to detention, because that obligation arises only after a finding that the detainee is neither dangerous nor so great a flight risk as to require detention without bond; here the judge found Petitioner was a flight risk, and counsel had in any event raised bond and an ankle bracelet. Because the court found no abuse of discretion on flight risk, it did not reach the dangerousness finding. The motion to enforce was denied and the case remains closed.
Key Takeaways
- A district court retains jurisdiction to enforce its own prior habeas orders compelling constitutional bond hearings even when the petitioner is subject to a removal order, because such enforcement is collateral to the removal process and not barred by 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(5) or § 1252(b)(9).
- Exhaustion of administrative remedies is not required when the only relief a habeas petitioner seeks is enforcement of the court's own prior order.
- On abuse-of-discretion review of a bond determination, a court cannot reweigh evidence and generally accepts that the immigration judge applied the correct legal standard if the judge expressly cited and applied the relevant caselaw.
- An immigration judge need not consider alternatives to detention once the judge finds the detainee is a flight risk or danger requiring detention without bond, and asking counsel whether any reason exists to believe a removal order might be overturned is not improper burden shifting.
Why It Matters
The decision clarifies that district courts may enforce their own habeas orders in the immigration detention context without offending the statutory scheme channeling removal challenges to the courts of appeals, and that no exhaustion is required when enforcement of the court's own order is the only relief sought. It also illustrates the narrowness of abuse-of-discretion review in bond cases: the court may not substitute its own weighing of flight-risk factors for the immigration judge's, and it upheld reliance on a pending criminal charge and an unchallenged removal order as permissible bases for denying bond.