Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Marlon Jose Cano-Mendoza, a Nicaraguan citizen held in immigration custody and represented by counsel, filed this habeas petition on October 28, 2026. Respondents answered on November 4, and Cano-Mendoza replied the next day. The petition challenged the immigration judge’s October 23, 2026 denial of bond after a Rodriguez hearing held following more than six months of detention. The immigration judge found that the government had proven flight risk by clear and convincing evidence.
The order identified two earlier habeas actions in the same court. In Cano-Mendoza I, No. 5:26-cv-03570-RAO, the court ordered a bond hearing; after the July 20, 2026 hearing, an immigration judge denied release based on flight risk. In Cano-Mendoza II, No. 5:26-cv-04064-RAO, Cano-Mendoza challenged his April 22, 2026 arrest and detention, and the court denied that petition on August 14, 2026.
For the October bond decision, the immigration judge cited numerous violations of release conditions, including missed biometric check-ins and a failed virtual home check-in. The written order also described Cano-Mendoza’s community ties as tenuous. Although the immigration judge acknowledged mitigating facts, he nevertheless concluded that bond should be denied. Cano-Mendoza then sought habeas relief from that determination in this action.
The Court’s Holding
Magistrate Judge Rozella A. Oliver explained that courts generally lack jurisdiction to review discretionary bond decisions under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(e). For the limited constitutional challenges to detention determinations that federal courts may entertain, the court applied the deferential abuse-of-discretion standard described in Martinez v. Clark. That review asks whether the immigration court applied the correct legal standard rather than allowing the habeas court to reweigh the evidence.
The court concluded that Cano-Mendoza failed to demonstrate an abuse of discretion in the flight-risk determination. It found that the immigration judge applied the correct burden of proof and referenced several facts supporting the decision. The court acknowledged that other facts supported a different outcome, but held that it could not reweigh the evidence. It therefore determined that the petition’s claims did not warrant the requested relief.
The operative ruling denied the petition and dismissed the action with prejudice. The decision resolved the challenge to the October 23 bond denial; it did not order release, another bond hearing, or any other form of relief. The order’s reasoning rested on the limited scope of review and the absence of a demonstrated abuse of discretion, not on a fresh balancing of the evidence by the district court.
Key Takeaways
- A federal habeas court does not ordinarily reweigh the evidence underlying an immigration judge’s discretionary bond determination.
- The court reviewed the challenged detention determination for abuse of discretion, focusing on whether the immigration judge applied the correct legal standard.
- The immigration judge’s use of the clear-and-convincing-evidence burden and citation of supporting facts were central to the court’s conclusion.
- Evidence that could support release did not require reversal because Cano-Mendoza did not establish an abuse of discretion.
- The petition was denied and the action was dismissed with prejudice, with no release or new bond hearing ordered.
Why It Matters
The order illustrates the narrow role of a habeas court reviewing an immigration bond denial under the framework applied here. A petitioner must do more than identify favorable evidence or invite the court to reach a different view of flight risk. The inquiry centers on legal error within a deferential standard, against the background of Congress’s restrictions on judicial review.
The disposition also places this case in the context of Cano-Mendoza’s repeated habeas litigation. His earlier success in obtaining a court-ordered bond hearing did not require the court to disturb the later denial of bond, and his unsuccessful challenge to the initial arrest and detention did not supply a basis for relief here. The court addressed the October 23 determination on the record and arguments presented in this petition.