Arturo Barrientos v. Ice Field Office Director

Ninth Circuit

Arturo Barrientos v. Ice Field Office Director

667 F. App'x 184

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJune 21, 2016

Docket15-35891

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 667 F. App'x 184 (Arturo Barrientos v. Ice Field Office Director) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Arturo Barrientos v. Ice Field Office Director, 667 F. App'x 184 (9th Cir. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

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 Bar-rientos 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 jais 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 *185 we lack jurisdiction to set aside the agency’s discretionary decision to deny bond, see 8 U.S.C. § 1226(e), we reject Barrien-tos’ request that we order his release on bond.

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition, is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provid- ' ed by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM **

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 Bar-rientos 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 jais 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 *185 we lack jurisdiction to set aside the agency’s discretionary decision to deny bond, see 8 U.S.C. § 1226(e), we reject Barrien-tos’ request that we order his release on bond.

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition, is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provid- ' ed by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

667 F. App'x 184, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arturo-barrientos-v-ice-field-office-director-ca9-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack