Jiaxing Xie v. Christopher J. Larose, et al.
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — 1 23 at 12.
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Linda Lopez (author)
Analysis
Petitioner Jiaxing Xie moved to alter or amend the judgment following a bond denial in his habeas corpus petition, arguing the immigration judge erred in placing the burden of proof on him and considering his manner of entry. The court denied the motion, holding that the burden of proof rests on the noncitizen under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and that the factors considered by the immigration judge were permissible.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment denied“Therefore, Petitioner’s Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment is DENIED.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard of review for Rule 59(e) motions, which requires a showing of manifest error or newly discovered evidence. The order recites that the Petitioner failed to allege specific wrongdoing or constitutional violations, and the legal analysis correctly identifies that under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), the burden of proof is on the noncitizen, not the government, as established by the Ninth Circuit in Rodriguez Diaz v. Garland. The court also correctly noted that the factors considered by the IJ (manner of entry, employment history) are permissible under the regulations and case law cited. The reasoning is sound and supported by the cited authorities. |
The order itself: sound — The order is sound. It correctly identifies the applicable legal standard for the burden of proof in § 1226(a) bond hearings, citing the controlling Ninth Circuit precedent (Rodriguez Diaz) and distinguishing the older precedent (Singh) which the Petitioner relied on. It also correctly applies the regulatory factors for bond determinations. The court addresses the Petitioner's arguments regarding the neutrality of EOIR by noting the lack of specific allegations of bias affecting his hearing. The reasoning is complete and legally accurate.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
possible biasOpinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JIAXING XIE, Case No.: 26v1421-LL-BLM 12 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 13 v. ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT 14 CHRISTOPHER J. LAROSE, et al., 15 Respondents. [ECF No. 7] 16 17 18 Before the Court is Petitioner Jiaxing Xie’s Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment. 19 ECF No. 7. Respondents filed a response opposing the motion. ECF No. 9. For the reasons 20 set forth below, the Court DENIES the Motion. 21 On March 5, 2026, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus asking the 22 Court to release him or in the alternative, order a bond determination hearing. ECF No. 1 23 at 12. Respondents responded that they do not oppose a bond hearing for Petitioner. ECF 24 No. 3. On March 16, 2026, this Court ordered an individualized bond hearing. ECF No. 5. 25 On March 18, 2026, an immigration judge (“IJ”) “conducted a [] bond hearing [under 8 26 U.S.C. § 1226(a) (“Section 1226(a)”)] and denied bond.” ECF no. 7-1 at 3. According to 27 Petitioner, the IJ placed the burden of proof on Petitioner and took issue with the fact that 28 Petitioner used a fraudulent document to enter the United States, did not have a stable 1 residential or employment history, did not submit any payment of taxes, had been denied 2 all relief, and had been ordered removed. Id. at 3–4. Based on these, Petitioner claims that 3 he did not receive “a constitutionally adequate remedy” and that continued detention 4 without a constitutionally adequate bond hearing violates [his] due process.” Id. at 4. 5 However, Petitioner has not alleged any wrongdoing by the IJ or the government 6 that would justify amending or altering this Court’s judgment. In Ninth Circuit, the 7 noncitizen bears the burden of proof in bond hearings under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) because 8 “Section 1226(a) and its implementing regulations provide extensive procedural 9 protections that are unavailable under other detention provisions.” Rodriguez Diaz v. 10 Garland, 53 F.4th 1189, 1202 (9th Cir. 2022); see also Sandesh v. LaRose, No. 26-CV- 11 0846-JES-DDL, 2026 WL 622690, at *5 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 5, 2026) (“Rodriguez Diaz held 12 that the noncitizen bears the burden of proof hearings under 1226(a)”).1 Thus, the IJ 13 correctly placed the burden on Petitioner. 14 Moreover, the IJ may look into such factors as employment history and manner of 15 entry into the country. To determine whether a noncitizen is a flight risk or poses a danger 16 to the community, an IJ may consider “any or all of the following” factors: (1) whether the 17 noncitizen has a fixed address in the United States; (2) the noncitizen’s length of residence 18 in the United States; (3) the noncitizen’s family ties in the United States, (4) the 19 noncitizen’s employment history, (5) the noncitizen’s record of appearance in court, (6) 20 the noncitizen’s criminal record, (7) the noncitizen’s history of immigration violations; (8) 21 22 23 1 Petitioner incorrectly relies on Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d at 1203-05 (9th Cir. 2011) to 24 argue that the burden should be the government, not Petitioner. ECF No. 7-1 at 10. 25 However, Singh is no longer good law following Rodriguez Diaz. See Sandesh, 2026 WL 26 622690, at *5. 27 28 1 attempts by the noncitizen to flee prosecution or otherwise escape from authorities; 2 ||and (9) the noncitizen’s manner of entry to the United States. Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 3 || 1196, 1206 n.5 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing Matter of Guerra, 20 I & N Dec. 37, 40 (BIA 2006)). 4 || Therefore, the IJ did not err in considering the fact that Petitioner used a fraudulent 5 document to enter the United States or that he lacks a stable employment history. 6 Lastly, while Petitioner spends a lot of time and energy arguing that “EOIR is no 7 longer a neutral body” (ECF No. 7-1 at 6-10), Petitioner has not alleged a single specific 8 instance that affected his bond hearing. Thus, Petitioner has shown that the March 18, 2026 9 || bond hearing was constitutionally inadequate. 10 Therefore, Petitioner’s Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment is DENIED. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 Dated: May 26, 2026 NO 13 Qe 14 Honorable Linda Lopez 15 United States District Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28