United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle
ORDER DECLINING TO ADOPT REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
AND GRANTING RESPONDENTS' MOTION TO DISMISS
RICARDO S. MARTINEZ, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter comes before the Court on Petitioner Yong Guo's
Petition for habeas relief, the Government's Motion to
Dismiss, and a Report and Recommendation prepared in response
to those materials. Dkts. #1, #8, and #13. Yong Guo, who is
currently detained at the Northwest Detention Center in
Tacoma, Washington, brings this 28 U.S.C. § 2241
immigration habeas action pro se to obtain release from
detention or a bond hearing. The Government has moved to
dismiss, and Mr. Guo opposes dismissal. For the reasons
stated below, the Court declines to adopt the Report and
Recommendation in full, DENIES the Petition and GRANTS the
Motion to Dismiss.
Court adopts and incorporates the facts as stated by the
Honorable Brian A. Tsuchida in the Report and Recommendation
at Dkt. #13.
district court has jurisdiction to review a Magistrate
Judge's report and recommendation on dispositive matters.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). “The district judge
must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's
disposition that has been properly objected to.”
Id. “A judge of the court may accept, reject,
or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Court reviews de novo those
portions of the report and recommendation to which specific
written objection is made. United States v.
Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en
challenges the lawfulness of his detention and also complains
about his removal proceedings. See Dkt. 5. Federal
district courts have habeas jurisdiction to review bond
hearing determinations for constitutional claims and legal
error. Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1196, 1202 (9th
Cir. 2011). They do not, however, have jurisdiction over
claims that directly or indirectly challenge an order of
removal. Martinez v. Napolitano, 704 F.3d 620, 622
(9th Cir. 2012) (exclusive jurisdiction over claims that
directly or indirectly challenge a removal order is vested in
the courts of appeals); 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(5) (petition
for review to the appropriate court of appeals is the
“sole and exclusive means for judicial review” of
a final order of removal). Accordingly, the Court has
jurisdiction to consider Mr. Guo's challenges to his
detention but not his removal proceedings.
Court agrees with and adopts the Report and Recommendation as
to the issue of Mr. Guo's request for release from
detention. See Dkt. #13 at 7-8.
New Bond Hearing
Immigration Judge's (“IJ”) discretionary
decision to deny bond is not subject to judicial review. 8
U.S.C. § 1226(e); see also Romero-Torres v.
Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887, 891-92 (9th Cir. 2003). But
federal district courts do have habeas jurisdiction to review
bond hearing determinations for constitutional claims and
legal error. Singh, 638 F.3d at 1200. Habeas
jurisdiction over such legal and constitutional claims is
proper only if they are “colorable, ”
i.e., “the claim must have some possible
validity.” Hernandez v. Sessions, 872 F.3d
976, 988 (9th Cir. 2017) (quoting Torres-Aguilar v.
I.N.S., 246 F.3d 1267, 1271 (9th Cir. 2001) (quotation
previous Ninth Circuit authority, the government was required
to provide automatic bond hearings every six months to
noncitizens who were detained pursuant to § 236(a) as a
matter of statutory interpretation. Rodriguez v.
Robbins, 804 F.3d 1060, 1089 (9th Cir. 2015),
rev'd sub nom Jennings v. Rodriguez, 138 S.Ct
830 (2018). At such bond hearings the Government bore the
burden of establishing by clear and convincing evidence that
a noncitizen was either a danger to the community or a flight
risk. Id. at 1074, 1087. The Supreme Court reversed
Rodriguez in Jennings, holding that
“[f]ederal regulations provide that aliens detained
under § 1226(a) receive bond hearings at the outset of
detention” and that “[n]othing in §
1226(a)'s text . . . supports the ...