Summary
In Barrientos, the Ninth Circuit held that under Matter of Guerra, 24 I. & N. Dec. 37, 40 (BIA 2006), the IJ was permitted to consider pending criminal charges, provided the evidence of the charges was "probative and specific."
Summary of this case from Ortega-Rangel v. SessionsOpinion
No. 15-35891
06-21-2016
ARTURO ALEXANDER BARRIENTOS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. ICE FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, Respondent - Appellee.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
D.C. No. 2:15-cv-00982-RSL MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington
Robert S. Lasnik, Senior District Judge, Presiding Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Arturo Alexander Barrientos appeals pro se the district court's denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging his detention without release on bond pending the conclusion of his immigration proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253(a). We review de novo the district court's denial of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1196, 1202 (9th Cir. 2011), and we affirm.
The district court properly concluded that Barrientos' detention comports with applicable legal and constitutional requirements, where an immigration judge ("IJ") conducted a recorded, individualized bond hearing, in which the IJ required the Department of Homeland Security to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Barrientos was a danger to the community and a flight risk. See Casas-Castrillon v. DHS, 535 F.3d 942, 951 (9th Cir. 2008); Singh, 638 F.3d at 1203-09.
Barrientos contends that the decision to deny his release on bond was improper because it was based on criminal charges that are still pending. However, the IJ was permitted to consider such evidence in denying bond. See Matter of Guerra, 24 I. & N. Dec. 37, 40 (BIA 2006) ("In the context of custody redeterminations, Immigration Judges are not limited to considering only criminal convictions in assessing whether an alien is a danger to the community. Any evidence in the record that is probative and specific can be considered." (emphasis in the original)); Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d at 1206 (applying analysis in Guerra to hearings held under Casas-Castrillon on related points of law).
Barrientos does not cite any authority in support of his suggestions that he is entitled to an additional bond review due to his continued detention. See Rodriguez v. Robbins, 804 F.3d 1060, 1089 (9th Cir. 2015); Rodriguez v. Robbins, 715 F.3d 1127, 1134-36 (9th Cir. 2013).
Because Barrientos has failed to establish that he is entitled to habeas relief and we lack jurisdiction to set aside the agency's discretionary decision to deny bond, see 8 U.S.C. § 1226(e), we reject Barrientos' request that we order his release on bond.
AFFIRMED.