Benito Mariano Micha Angono v. Warden Jeremy Casey
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — Only once Petitioner has 2 ||}exhausted his administrative remedies by appealing to and receiving a decision from the 3 reg
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cathy Ann Bencivengo (author)
Analysis
The court considered the petitioner's motion to enforce a prior order for a bond hearing and his motion to appoint counsel. The court denied both motions because the petitioner had not exhausted his administrative remedies by appealing the Immigration Judge's bond denial to the Board of Immigration Appeals.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to Enforce Habeas Order denied“The Court DENIES the motion to enforce because Petitioner has not exhausted his administrative remedies with respect to the IJ’s adverse bond determination.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the exhaustion doctrine. In the context of immigration detention, federal courts generally lack jurisdiction to review an Immigration Judge's bond determination until the petitioner has appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals and received a final decision. Citing Leonardo v. Crawford, the court accurately identified that seeking habeas relief before exhausting administrative remedies is an improper shortcut. The record indicates the petitioner appealed to the BIA but had not yet received a decision, making the motion premature. |
Motion to Appoint Counsel denied“The Court therefore also DENIES the motion to appoint counsel.” | agree with court The denial of the motion to appoint counsel follows logically from the denial of the underlying motion to enforce. Since the court found no basis to grant the substantive relief requested due to lack of exhaustion, there is no need to appoint counsel to litigate a claim that is currently non-justiciable in federal court. The order does not provide a detailed analysis of the specific criteria for appointing counsel (such as complexity or inability to afford), but the procedural posture renders the appointment unnecessary at this stage. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally correct and relies on binding Ninth Circuit precedent (Leonardo v. Crawford) to support the exhaustion requirement. The reasoning is concise but sufficient for a procedural dismissal based on lack of exhaustion. It correctly identifies that the BIA appeal is pending and thus the federal court cannot intervene yet.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BENITO MARIANO MICHA ANGONO, Case No.: 3:26-cv-2313-CAB-DEB 12 Petitioner, ORDER: 13 v. (1) DENYING MOTION TO 14 WARDEN JEREMY CASEY, ENFORCE HABEAS ORDER, [Doc. 15 Respondent. No. 10]; and 16 (2) DENYING MOTION TO 17 APPOINT COUNSEL, [Doc. No. 9].
18 Pending before the Court is Benito Mariano Micha Angono’s motion to enforce the 19 Court’s order for a bond hearing, [Doc. No. 10], and motion to appoint counsel, [Doc. No. 20 9]. In response to his Petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, Petitioner 21 received a bond hearing on May 21, 2026; the immigration judge (“IJ”) denied bond based 22 on a risk of flight. [Doc. Nos. 1, 8, and 10-2 at 3.] Petitioner argues that the IJ incorrectly 23 applied the burden of proof at his bond hearing. [Doc. No. 10 at 1.] Petitioner has appealed 24 the IJ’s decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). [Id.] 25 The Court DENIES the motion to enforce because Petitioner has not exhausted his 26 administrative remedies with respect to the IJ’s adverse bond determination. See Leonardo 27 v. Crawford, 646 F.3d 1157, 1160 (9th Cir. 2011) (pursuing habeas relief before exhausting 28 1 ||administrative remedies at BIA is an improper shortcut). Only once Petitioner has 2 ||}exhausted his administrative remedies by appealing to and receiving a decision from the 3 regarding the IJ’s adverse bond determination may he seek relief from that bond 4 determination via a habeas petition to this Court. /d. The Court therefore also DENIES 5 ||the motion to appoint counsel. 6 The Clerk of the Court shall close the case. 7 Itis SO ORDERED. 8 || Dated: June 22, 2026 ( (jh — 9 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 10 United States District Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28