Abraham Barreto Sanchez v. Markwayne Mullin, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, et al.
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — § 1226(a), the detainee bears the burden to 28 show, by a preponderance of the evidence, “that he is not ‘a threat to national security, a 1 ||danger to the community at large, likely to abscond, or oth
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Dana M. Sabraw (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by an immigration detainee seeking a bond hearing. The court granted the petition, directing the government to hold an individualized bond hearing within 14 days where the petitioner bears the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Granting the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and directing an individualized bond hearing within 14 days“Accordingly, Respondents are directed to arrange an individualized bond hearing for Petitioner before an immigration judge within fourteen (14) days of this Order unless Petitioner requests a continuance.” | agree with court The court correctly identifies that the petitioner is part of a certified class entitled to bond hearings under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) based on the referenced class action. The government does not oppose the bond hearing itself, only the procedural details. Ordering the hearing is a standard remedy in this context. |
Determining that the petitioner bears the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence“At that bond hearing, Petitioner shall have the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that he does not pose a danger to the community or a risk of flight if released on bond.” | agree with court The court relies on Rodriguez v. Garland, a Ninth Circuit precedent, which explicitly places the burden on the detainee to show they are not a flight risk or danger to the community. This application of the law is consistent with binding circuit authority. |
Setting a 14-day timeframe for the bond hearing“The Court also agrees with Respondents that 14 days is a reasonable timeframe in which to hold Petitioner’s bond hearing given the heavy caseloads.” | agree with court The court accepts the government's proposed timeline as reasonable in light of caseloads. While the order does not cite specific authority for the 14-day period, it is a procedural determination within the court's discretion and consistent with the lack of opposition from the government on this specific point. |
The order itself: sound — The order is concise and directly addresses the specific issues raised in the traverse (burden of proof and timeframe). It correctly applies the binding Ninth Circuit precedent regarding the burden of proof. The procedural directive for the bond hearing is clear and supported by the lack of opposition from the government on the core relief.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ABRAHAM BARRETO SANCHEZ, Case No.: 26cv3692 DMS (JAC)
12 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING PETITION 13 v. 14 MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, et 15 al. 16 Respondents. 17 18 19 This case comes before the Court on the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. 20 Respondents filed a Return to the Petition in which they state Petitioner appears to be a 21 member of the bond-eligible class certified in Maldonado Bautista v. Santacruz, Case No. 22 5:25-cv-01873-SSS-BFM, 2025 WL 3288403 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 25, 2025). They therefore 23 do not oppose an order from the Court directing a bond hearing be held pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 24 § 1226(a). Petitioner filed a Traverse challenging only the applicable burden of proof for 25 the bond hearing and the timeframe for that hearing. 26 In Rodriguez v. Garland, 53 F.4th 1189, 1197 (9th Cir. 2022), the Ninth Circuit stated 27 that at a bond hearing held pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), the detainee bears the burden to 28 show, by a preponderance of the evidence, “that he is not ‘a threat to national security, a 1 ||danger to the community at large, likely to abscond, or otherwise a poor bail risk[.]’” 2 (quoting Matter of Guerra, 24 I. & N. Dec. 37, 40 (B.LA. 2006)). Thus, the Court agrees 3 || with Respondents on the burden of proof issue. The Court also agrees with Respondents 4 || that 14 days is a reasonable timeframe in which to hold Petitioner’s bond hearing given the 5 || heavy caseloads. 6 Accordingly, Respondents are directed to arrange an individualized bond hearing for 7 Petitioner before an immigration judge within fourteen (14) days of this Order unless 8 || Petitioner requests a continuance. At that bond hearing, Petitioner shall have the burden 9 ||of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that he does not pose a danger to the 10 ||/community or a risk of flight if released on bond. On or before August 20, 2026, the 11 || parties shall file a Joint Status Report confirming Petitioner has been provided with a bond 12 hearing and the result of that hearing. In that Report, the parties shall also provide their 13 || position on whether a further order on the Petition is necessary or if the Clerk of Court may 14 || enter judgment accordingly and close this case. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 Dated: July 30, 2026 g p 17 a Yn. 8 Hon. Dana M. Sabraw United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28