Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MOHAMED ELJARAOUY, Case No.: 3:26-cv-01449-BTM-AHG 12 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 13 v. ENFORCE JUDGMENT 14 [ECF NO. 13] 15 JEREMY CASEY, Warden, Imperial Regional Detention Facility, 16 Respondent. 17 18 19 On April 8, 2026, the Court conditionally granted Mohamed Eljaraouy’s petition for 20 the writ of habeas corpus. (ECF No. 10.) The Court ordered the Government to release 21 Eljaraouy from custody or provide him with an individualized bond hearing within twenty- 22 one days of the order. A bond hearing was held for Eljaraouy on April 27, 2026. (ECF 23 No. 13 (“Mot. Enforce”), at 2.) The immigration judge (“IJ”) determined that Eljaraouy 24 was a flight risk and denied bond. (Id.) On May 8, 2026, Eljaraouy moved this Court to 25 enforce its judgment. (Id.) He argues that his bond hearing was “fundamentally unfair and 26 violated his due process rights” because the IJ improperly weighed his language abilities 27 and neglected to weigh the sponsorship of an asylum shelter. (Id.) 28 Under Martinez v. Clark, the Court reviews the IJ’s decision for abuse of discretion. 1 124 F.4th 775, 784 (9th Cir. 2024). A court abuses its discretion “when it applies the wrong 2 legal standard or when its findings of fact or its application of law to fact are ‘illogical, 3 implausible, or without support in inferences that may be drawn from the record.’” United 4 States v. Chichande, 113 F.4th 913, 919–20 (9th Cir. 2024) (quoting Glick v. Edwards, 803 5 F.3d 505, 508 (9th Cir. 2015)). Put another way, the Court must be “left with a definite 6 and firm conviction” that the IJ “committed a clear error of judgment” to find abuse of 7 discretion. United States v. Ressam, 679 F.3d 1069, 1086 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting United 8 States v. Hinkson, 585 F.3d 1247, 1260 (9th Cir. 2009)). 9 The Court does not find that the IJ used the wrong legal standard. At the outset of 10 the hearing, the IJ stated that the “government bears the burden in this case.” (Mot. 11 Enforce, Ex. A, 1.) The IJ later restated that “the government bears the burden of 12 establishing by clear and convincing evidence that the respondent is a risk of flight or a 13 danger to the community.” (Id. at 8.) This was the standard set by the Court in its 14 conditional grant of Eljaraouy’s habeas petition. 15 The Court looks to the IJ’s factual findings and application of those facts to the legal 16 standard. To determine if a noncitizen is eligible for bond, an IJ weighs the Guerra factors: 17 (1) whether the alien has a fixed address in the United States; (2) the alien’s length of residence in the United States; (3) the alien’s family ties in the 18 United States, and whether they may entitle the alien to reside permanently in 19 the United States in the future; (4) the alien’s employment history; (5) the alien’s record of appearance in court; (6) the alien’s criminal record, including 20 the extensiveness of criminal activity, the recency of such activity, and the 21 seriousness of the offenses; (7) the alien’s history of immigration violations; (8) any attempts by the alien to flee prosecution or otherwise escape from 22 authorities; and (9) the alien’s manner of entry to the United States. 23 24 Martinez, 124 F.4th at 783 (quoting In re Guerra, 24 I. & N. Dec. 37, 40 (B.I.A. 2006)). 25 Here, the IJ did not find that Eljaraouy was a danger. Addressing only risk of flight, he 26 found that Eljaraouy has no family or community ties in the country, no ties to the United 27 States itself, and no employment history because he had been in immigration detention 28 since arrival. (Id. at 8.) He found that Eljaraouy entered the country illegally. Lastly, he 1 found that Eljaraouy was unable to communicate fluently in any language aside from “a 2 very specific subset of Tarifit that is only spoken in his one particular village in Morocco.” 3 (Id.) Based on these factors, the IJ found Eljaraouy to be a flight risk. 4 The IJ’s determination was not an abuse of discretion. Each finding was drawn from 5 the record and connected to the Guerra factors. Eljaraouy responds that a “noncitizen’s 6 language abilities” is not on the factors and so was improperly considered. (Mot. Enforce, 7 2.) The IJ did not, however, consider Eljaraouy’s language abilities as an independent 8 factor. During the hearing, the IJ, Eljaraouy’s counsel, and the interpreter attempted to 9 speak with Eljaraouy in “numerous different languages,” including the Tarifit language 10 that Eljaraouy initially claimed to speak. (Mot. Enforce, Ex. A, 8, 2–7.) Eljaraouy denied 11 that he was familiar with any of these languages. The IJ found that Eljaraouy’s inability to 12 communicate “with anybody in the community” would hinder him from communicating 13 with sponsors or transporting himself in the community. (Id. at 8.) This, along with 14 Eljaraouy’s lack of personal ties, would affect Eljaraouy’s ability to function outside 15 detention, such as attending court hearings. 16 Eljaraouy also claims that the sponsor organization Casa Marianella would provide 17 him with case management and transportation for court hearings and English lessons to 18 broaden his communication abilities. (Id. at 4–5.) This evidence should have been 19 weighed more by the IJ. But the transcript of the hearing shows that the IJ and the parties 20 tried in good faith to communicate with Eljaraouy. Based on the repeated failures to 21 adequately do so, the IJ found that Eljaraouy would struggle to communicate with others, 22 including sponsors. This determination was not “illogical, implausible, or without support” 23 in the record. Thus, the IJ did not clearly err by finding that Eljaraouy was a flight risk. 24 // 25 // 26 // 27 // 28 // The Court is not left with a definite and firm conviction that the IJ “committed a 2 ||clear error of judgment” in this hearing. Ressam, 679 F.3d at 1086 (citation omitted). 3 || Accordingly, the Court cannot find that the IJ abused his discretion when he denied 4 Eljaraouy bond. The motion to enforce judgment is DENIED without prejudice. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 || Dated: July 28, 2026 il ‘ Honoris Barry Ted Hh sur 8 United States District Judge 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4 □ □□