Emanuel Culutue Domingos v. Jeremy Casey, Warden, Imperial Regional Detention Facility
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Barry T. Moskowitz (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a motion to enforce its prior habeas corpus order requiring an individualized bond hearing with a proper interpreter. The court granted the motion in part, finding the previous hearing invalid due to the lack of a Chokwe interpreter, and ordered a new bond hearing to be held.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to Enforce Order granted in part“Accordingly, the motion to enforce the Court’s order is GRANTED IN PART.” | agree with court The court correctly identified that the failure to provide a competent interpreter for a non-English speaker in immigration proceedings violates due process and the specific terms of the prior order. The reliance on Perez-Lastor supports the conclusion that the hearing was fundamentally flawed. |
Remedy of release without a bond hearing denied without prejudice“The remedy of release without a bond hearing is DENIED without prejudice.” | agree with court The court ordered a new hearing rather than immediate release, which is a standard remedial approach when a prior hearing is found invalid due to procedural error rather than a substantive finding of no risk. The denial without prejudice allows the petitioner to seek release if the new hearing is also flawed or if the new hearing results in a denial of bond. |
The order itself: sound with gaps — The order is concise but logically sound. It correctly applies the Ninth Circuit precedent regarding interpreter services in immigration proceedings to the specific facts of the bond hearing. It identifies the specific breach (lack of Chokwe interpreter) and provides a clear remedy (new hearing with proper interpreter). It does not address the other arguments raised by the petitioner (burden of proof, weighing of sponsorship) in detail, but the interpreter issue alone was sufficient to invalidate the hearing, making the other arguments moot for the purpose of the current order.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 EMANUEL CULUTUE DOMINGOS, Case No.: 3:26-cv-01151-BTM-JLB 12 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 13 v. DENYING IN PART MOTION TO ENFORCE ORDER 14 15 JEREMY CASEY, Warden, Imperial [ECF NO. 13] Regional Detention Facility, 16 Respondent. 17 18 19 On March 23, 2026, the Court granted in part Emanuel Culutue Domingos’s petition 20 for the writ of habeas corpus. (ECF No. 9 (“Order”).) The Court ordered the Government 21 to provide him with an individualized bond hearing before a fair, neutral, and open-minded 22 immigration judge (“IJ”), among other requirements. (Id. at 6.) A bond hearing was held 23 for Domingos on April 1, 2026. (ECF No. 13 (“Mot. Enforce”), at 2.) The IJ determined 24 that Domingos was an extreme flight risk and denied bond. (ECF No. 13, Ex. A, at 1.) On 25 May 7, 2026, Domingos moved this Court to enforce its order. He argues that the IJ did 26 not comply with the Court’s order because she improperly shifted the evidentiary burden 27 to Domingos, failed to provide an interpreter for the Chokwe language he speaks, and 28 improperly weighed the sponsorship of an asylum shelter. (Mot. Enforce, 1.) l The Court finds that the IJ’s failure to obtain a Chokwe interpreter breached the 2 || Court’s order. In its previous order, the Court stated that “[t]he burden is on the Respondent 3 ||to provide an interpreter for the Petitioner’s immigration proceedings.” (Order, 5.) Cf 4 || Perez-Lastor v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 208 F.3d 773, 778 (9th Cir. 2000) (“If an 5 does not speak English, deportation proceedings must be translated into a language 6 || the alien understands.”). The bond determination hearing 1s an immigration proceeding. 7 || Therefore, the Government was required to provide an interpreter so that Domingos could 8 ||communicate with the parties and the IJ in a language he is fluent in. But the interpreter 9 || provided for the hearing spoke Portuguese, a language that Domingos understands in a 10 |/ limited capacity. (ECF No. 13, Ex. B, at 1 (“I do not speak Portuguese well... □ I don’t 11 understand that.’’).) This “incompetent translation prevented’ Domingos “from presenting 12 ||relevant evidence.” Perez-Lastor, 208 F.3d at 782. The IJ in turn appeared legitimately 13 || frustrated by Domingos’s responses to her questions. This issue could have been remedied 14 || by having the appropriate interpreter for the hearing. 15 The Court finds that the IJ did not comply with the Court’s order and so abused her 16 discretion. Accordingly, the motion to enforce the Court’s order is GRANTED IN PART. 17 || The Court will hold a bond hearing for Domingos. Once a Chokwe interpreter is secured, 18 Court will set a hearing date and time. At the bond hearing, the parties must provide 19 || information about the sponsor organization Casa Marianella, such as the number of foreign 20 || language speakers at the shelter, the likelihood that a Chokwe speaker is present, and the 21 percentage of residents that show up to court hearings or flee without attending. The 22 ||remedy of release without a bond hearing is DENIED without prejudice. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 || Dated: July 30, 2026 / il pp, ‘1 2° Honomble Barry Ted Mosko vity 26 United States District Judge 27 28 2 □ □□□