The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA – EASTERN DIVISION
10
11 GURKAN SOYKAN, Case No. EDCV 25-0877-DSF(AS)
12 Petitioner, ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS,
13 v. CONCLUSIONS AND
14 KRISTI NOEM, et. al., RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED
15 STATES MAGISTRTE JUDGE
Respondents.
16
17
18
19 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the
20 Petition, all of the relevant records, and the attached Report and
21 Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge. After having made
22 a de novo determination of the portions of the Report and
23 Recommendation (“R&R”) to which Objections were directed, the Court
24 concurs with and accepts the findings and conclusions of the
25 Magistrate Judge.
26
27 Petitioner objects particularly to the R&R’s statement that
28 his September 6, 2024 felony DUI conviction in Orange County
1 Superior Court resulted in a 910-day jail sentence, when in fact
2 Petitioner’s felony DUI was resolved through a structured framework
3 with the DUI Court pursuant to which he would serve only 90 days
4 in Orange County Jail, followed by an “intensive” rehabilitative
5 program, and then 90 days in “Supervised Electronic Confinement
6 (‘SEC’) / home detention, with ordinary custody credits
7 substantially reducing actual time served.” (Objections at 1, 5;
8 see R&R at 4). Petitioner complains that the immigration judge
9 similarly referenced the incorrect 910-day jail sentence to justify
10 a finding of dangerousness and deny bond, after the Board of
11 Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) had remanded for a reasoned explanation
12 for the decision. (Objections at 1-5, Ex. A).
13
14 However, Petitioner does not dispute that when ICE detained
15 him on September 8, 2024, he had accrued four separate DUI
16 convictions within just the last two months – the last of which
17 was a felony because of the several prior DUIs. That fact alone
18 suffices, regardless of the length of his felony sentence. As the
19 immigration judge remarked, “[d]riving under the influence
20 ‘represents a grave danger to the community and is a significant
21 adverse consideration in bond proceedings.’” (Objections Ex. A at
22 2 (quoting In re Choc-Tut, 29 I. & N. Dec. 48, 50 (BIA 2025))).
23 Therefore, the Magistrate Judge appropriately found that the number
24 of these incidents within a short, recent period would at least
25 reasonably support a finding of dangerousness. See, e.g., Perez v.
26 Wolf, 445 F. Supp. 3d 275, 288-90 (N.D. Cal. 2020) (upholding IJ
27 bond denial based on finding of dangerousness due to five DUI
28 convictions); In re Siniauskas, 27 I. & N. Dec. 207, 209 (BIA 2018)
1 (“Driving under the influence is a significant adverse
2 || consideration in bond proceedings.”).
3
4 The Objections are overruled.
5
6 IT IS ORDERED that Judgment be entered denying the Petition
7 |) and the Ex Parte Application and dismissing this action without
8 || prejudice.
9
10 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk serve copies of this
11 || Order, the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation and the
12 || Judgment on counsel for Petitioner and counsel for Respondent.
13
14 DATED: March 6, 2026 ‘a
/{ □ }
‘DALE S. FISCHER
16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28