Gurkan Soykan v. Kristi Noem, et. al.

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: March 6, 2026
• Docket: 5:25-cv-00877
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA – EASTERN DIVISION 10 11 GURKAN SOYKAN, Case No. EDCV 25-0877-DSF(AS) 12 Petitioner, ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, 13 v. CONCLUSIONS AND 14 KRISTI NOEM, et. al., RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED 15 STATES MAGISTRTE JUDGE Respondents. 16

17 18 19 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the 20 Petition, all of the relevant records, and the attached Report and 21 Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge. After having made 22 a de novo determination of the portions of the Report and 23 Recommendation (“R&R”) to which Objections were directed, the Court 24 concurs with and accepts the findings and conclusions of the 25 Magistrate Judge. 26 27 Petitioner objects particularly to the R&R’s statement that 28 his September 6, 2024 felony DUI conviction in Orange County 1 Superior Court resulted in a 910-day jail sentence, when in fact 2 Petitioner’s felony DUI was resolved through a structured framework 3 with the DUI Court pursuant to which he would serve only 90 days 4 in Orange County Jail, followed by an “intensive” rehabilitative 5 program, and then 90 days in “Supervised Electronic Confinement 6 (‘SEC’) / home detention, with ordinary custody credits 7 substantially reducing actual time served.” (Objections at 1, 5; 8 see R&R at 4). Petitioner complains that the immigration judge 9 similarly referenced the incorrect 910-day jail sentence to justify 10 a finding of dangerousness and deny bond, after the Board of 11 Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) had remanded for a reasoned explanation 12 for the decision. (Objections at 1-5, Ex. A). 13 14 However, Petitioner does not dispute that when ICE detained 15 him on September 8, 2024, he had accrued four separate DUI 16 convictions within just the last two months – the last of which 17 was a felony because of the several prior DUIs. That fact alone 18 suffices, regardless of the length of his felony sentence. As the 19 immigration judge remarked, “[d]riving under the influence 20 ‘represents a grave danger to the community and is a significant 21 adverse consideration in bond proceedings.’” (Objections Ex. A at 22 2 (quoting In re Choc-Tut, 29 I. & N. Dec. 48, 50 (BIA 2025))). 23 Therefore, the Magistrate Judge appropriately found that the number 24 of these incidents within a short, recent period would at least 25 reasonably support a finding of dangerousness. See, e.g., Perez v. 26 Wolf, 445 F. Supp. 3d 275, 288-90 (N.D. Cal. 2020) (upholding IJ 27 bond denial based on finding of dangerousness due to five DUI 28 convictions); In re Siniauskas, 27 I. & N. Dec. 207, 209 (BIA 2018) 1 (“Driving under the influence is a significant adverse 2 || consideration in bond proceedings.”). 3 4 The Objections are overruled. 5 6 IT IS ORDERED that Judgment be entered denying the Petition 7 |) and the Ex Parte Application and dismissing this action without 8 || prejudice. 9 10 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk serve copies of this 11 || Order, the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation and the 12 || Judgment on counsel for Petitioner and counsel for Respondent. 13 14 DATED: March 6, 2026 ‘a /{ □ } ‘DALE S. FISCHER 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28