Jaidivert Hurtado Anchico v. Markwayne Mullin, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, et al.
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — The IJ stated that “[u]ltimately, the court 2 finds that the [Petitioner] has not met his burden of showing he’s not a danger to the 3 ||community or
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Linda Lopez (author)
Analysis
The court considered Petitioner's Amended Motion to Enforce Judgment, which argued that the Immigration Judge failed to comply with a prior habeas order by not considering alternative conditions of release. The court denied the motion, finding that the IJ was not required to consider alternatives because it had determined bond was inappropriate, and that the IJ's decision was not an abuse of discretion.
| What the court decided | Standard it applied | The model |
|---|---|---|
Denial of Petitioner's Amended Motion to Enforce Judgment“Accordingly, Court DENIES Petitioner’s Motion to Enforce Judgment.” | abuse of discretion | agree with court The court correctly interpreted the conditional language of its prior order ('if he determines bond is appropriate') to mean that the IJ was not required to consider alternative conditions if it found bond inappropriate. Furthermore, the court correctly applied the abuse of discretion standard for reviewing immigration custody determinations and noted that the Petitioner failed to argue that the IJ applied the incorrect legal standard, which is the primary avenue for judicial review in this context. |
The order itself: sound — The order is logically consistent and relies on the specific language of the prior order to resolve the compliance issue. It correctly identifies the standard of review and notes the Petitioner's failure to raise a legal error argument, which is fatal to the motion under the cited Ninth Circuit precedent.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 JAIDIVERT HURTADO ANCHICO, Case No.: 26cv3559-LL-JAC 10 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 11 v. ENFORCE JUDGMENT 12 MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Secretary of [ECF No. 9] the Department of Homeland Security, et 13 al., 14 Respondents. 15 16 17 Before the Court is Petitioner Jaidivert Hurtado’s Amended Motion to Enforce 18 Judgment. ECF No. 9. Respondents filed a response opposing the Motion and Petitioner 19 filed a Reply. ECF Nos. 10, 11. For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES the 20 Motion. 21 On May 20, 2026, this Court granted Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 22 and ordered an individualized bond hearing before an immigration judge (“IJ”). ECF No. 23 11. On May 20, 2026, IJ Mark Sameit held a bond hearing and denied bond, finding 24 Petitioner to be a flight risk. ECF No. 9-2. In support thereof, the IJ “did not find the 25 [Petitioner’s] testimony to be credible in light of the evidence submitted.” Id. at 8. For 26 example, the IJ stated on the record that Petitioner “driving 180 miles from LA to play 27 soccer at someone’s house and then driving all the way down to go to a casino right on the 28 border, um, simply is not matching. The court notes that, uh, his story does not match up 1 || with the ... record[ing] on 2/13 in his place.” /d. The IJ stated that “[u]ltimately, the court 2 finds that the [Petitioner] has not met his burden of showing he’s not a danger to the 3 ||community or a flight risk, and the court is going to deny bond at this time.” Jd. 4 On July 10, 2026, Petitioner filed the instant Amended Motion to Enforce Judgment 5 || arguing that the IJ did not comply with this Court’s May 20, 2026 order because the IJ did 6 ||not consider “alternative conditions of release.” ECF No. 9 at 3-6. However, this Court’s 7 || order stated: “The immigration judge shall consider alternative conditions of release and 8 || Petitioner’s ability to pay bond if he determines bond is appropriate.” ECF No. 6 at 3-4 9 ||(emphasis added). Here, the IJ determined that bond is not appropriate, so the IJ did not 10 || have to consider alternative conditions of release. Moreover, there is no other basis for this 11 Court to enforce its judgment. While federal courts have “inherent power to enforce its 12 ||judgments” (Peacock v. Thomas, 516 U.S. 349, 356 (1996)), the district court reviews an 13 |/immigration custody determination in habeas proceedings under an abuse of discretion 14 standard. Martinez v. Clark, 124 F.4th 775, 784 (9th Cir. 2024) (“When questions require 15 close review of agency-found facts, like the ‘dangerousness’ determination [in an 16 |/immigration custody hearing], we review for an abuse of discretion.”). In doing so, the 17 || court “cannot reweigh evidence but can only determine whether the [IJ] applied the correct 18 || legal standard.” /d. at 785. 19 Nowhere in his Motion or Reply does Petitioner argue that the IJ applied the 20 || incorrect legal standard or assert some violation of his constitutional rights. Accordingly, 21 Court DENIES Petitioner’s Motion to Enforce Judgment. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 ||Dated: August 27, 2026 NO 24 DE | 25 Honorable Linda Lopez United States District Judge 27 28