Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Ramak Setayesh Far, an Iranian citizen admitted as an F-2 dependent, was arrested by ICE while his asylum application was pending. An immigration judge denied bond after finding that Far had not shown he was unlikely to flee. Far sought habeas relief, arguing that his arrest lacked adequate process and that his later custody hearing was constitutionally deficient.
Far contended that the government should have borne a clear-and-convincing-evidence burden and that the immigration judge failed to consider alternatives to detention or his ability to pay. The government responded that the hearing complied with the framework governing detention under 8 U.S.C. section 1226(a).
The Court’s Holding
The court denied the habeas petition without prejudice and directed entry of judgment. It held that the immigration judge made an individualized assessment of Far’s family ties, immigration history, and asserted sponsor, applied permissible flight-risk factors, and did not abuse his discretion.
The court also held that section 1226(a) places the burden on the detainee to show eligibility for release by a preponderance of the evidence. The written ruling expressly addressed alternatives to detention, and ability to pay was immaterial because no bond amount was set. Far may seek a new custody determination if circumstances materially change.
Key Takeaways
- A section 1226(a) detainee ordinarily bears the burden of showing that release is warranted.
- Federal habeas review may test whether an immigration judge applied the correct legal standard, but it does not permit reweighing the evidence.
- A ruling that no bond or alternative would mitigate flight risk can satisfy the requirement to consider alternatives.
- Ability to pay matters when a bond is set, not when release is denied outright.
Why It Matters
The decision gives immigration practitioners a concrete checklist for reviewing bond determinations: individualized findings, recognized risk factors, consideration of alternatives, and the correct burden of proof. It also underscores the importance of building a documented record of family ties, sponsorship, and changed circumstances.