Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Luz Agripina Angeles-Cano, a Peruvian citizen in immigration custody and represented by counsel, filed this petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on October 15, 2026. Respondents answered on October 23, and she replied on November 3. The petition alleged denial of meaningful participation in her bond hearing, use of the wrong legal standard, continued detention without adequate process, prolonged detention without a custody hearing, and unreasonably prolonged detention.
Angeles-Cano had filed an earlier habeas petition in the same district on March 25, 2026. That action produced an order requiring an individualized bond hearing, which occurred on April 27. The immigration judge ordered detention based on flight risk. She appealed and submitted a brief to the Board of Immigration Appeals. On September 14, the BIA remanded for a full bond memorandum stating the factual findings and legal reasons, and that appeal remained pending.
The present petition stated that Angeles-Cano did not speak English and received no Spanish interpreter at the April 27 hearing. It also stated that an immigration judge ordered her removed on July 17 and that her appeal of that order remained pending. Separately, she received a Rodriguez hearing on August 18, at which an immigration judge again denied bond based on flight risk.
The Court’s Holding
Magistrate Judge Rozella A. Oliver explained that federal courts generally lack jurisdiction to review discretionary bond decisions, but may entertain limited constitutional challenges. Under the applicable abuse-of-discretion approach, the court does not reweigh evidence; it determines whether the immigration court applied the correct legal standard. The court initially noted that the record was silent about interpretation and that Angeles-Cano's BIA brief oddly omitted the interpreter claim without explanation.
The court nevertheless excused prudential exhaustion because it was not apparent that she could amend the claims in her pending BIA appeal. On the merits, it applied the settled rule that due process requires immigration proceedings to be translated into a language the individual understands. Respondents supplied neither a transcript nor an audio recording to rebut her statement that no Spanish interpreter was provided. On that record, the court found a violation of her right to participate meaningfully in the proceedings.
The court granted the petition only in part. It ordered a new bond hearing within 14 days, with a Spanish interpreter assisting Angeles-Cano and with respondents bearing the burden to establish danger to the community or flight risk by clear and convincing evidence. It expressly found that she had not established entitlement to release. It also rejected her Zadvydas claim because her removal order was not final and she therefore was not detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6), found no factual support for the wrong-standard claim, and held that the unchallenged August Rodriguez hearing undercut her broader adequate-process claims.
Key Takeaways
- The court excused prudential exhaustion because it was unclear whether the interpreter claim could be added to the pending BIA appeal.
- The government's failure to provide a hearing transcript or audio recording left the no-interpreter assertion unrebutted on this record.
- The remedy was a new bond hearing with Spanish interpretation within 14 days, not immediate release.
- At the new hearing, respondents must prove danger to the community or flight risk by clear and convincing evidence.
- The court rejected the Zadvydas claim because the removal order was not final and rejected the other detention claims for the reasons stated in the order.
Why It Matters
The decision separates a constitutional challenge to the adequacy of an immigration bond hearing from ordinary review of discretionary bond decisions. It also shows how an unrebutted interpretation claim can establish a due process violation even where the petitioner omitted that issue from a pending administrative appeal.
The order provides process-focused relief while leaving custody to be determined at a constitutionally adequate hearing. Its express denial of release and rejection of the remaining claims limit the disposition to the new-hearing remedy and its specified burden of proof.