Opinion

1

2

3

4

5

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8

9 ALFONSO GALLARDO-MORENO, No. 1:26-cv-01151-KES-FJS (HC)

10 Petitioner,

11 v.

12

WARDEN, GOLDEN STATE ANNEX, et

13 al.,

14 Respondents.

15

16 In an effort to aid the parties in their preparations for the status hearing conference set for

17 April 30, 2026, at 10:30 a.m., the Court provides this list of questions and topics that the parties

18 should be prepared to address:

19 1) An online search of the EOIR Automated Case Information utilizing Petitioner’s A-

20 Number indicates “no appeal was received for this case.” What is the status of the

21 appeal of the immigration judge’s January 12, 2026, order?

22 2) The online search of the EOIR Automated Case Information further indicates

23 Petitioner has a master hearing scheduled on May 5, 2026, before an immigration

24 judge. What is the current status of Petitioner’s immigration case?

25 3) The exhibits submitted by Respondents indicate that the Board of Immigration

26 Appeals (“Board”) granted DHS’s motion for discretionary stay on March 18, 2026.

27 (ECF No. 9.) Therefore, it appears authority for staying the Immigration Judge’s order

28 has shifted from 8 C.F.R. § 1003.19(i)(2) to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.19(i)(1). Is the due

] process concern that a DHS official can invoke an automatic stay in an arbitrary and

2 capricious fashion no longer at issue? The parties should be prepared to explain the

3 process the Board uses to evaluate requests for discretionary stays under section

4 1003.19(1)(1) generally and the process that the Board used here to evaluate

5 Respondents’ request.

6 4) Assuming authority for the stay is now vested with the Board, are Diouf v. Napolitano,

7 634, F.3d 1081 (9th Cir. 2011), and Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001), cited in

8 Pet.’s Reply Br. (ECF No. 11), the only authorities Petitioner invokes to challenge the

9 Board’s discretionary stay decision?

10 5) What is Respondents’ position with respect to Petitioner’s contention that the Board’s

11 issuance of a discretionary stay violated his due process rights? Respondents are

12 directed to address the district court’s opinion in Otilio B.F. v. Andrews, et al., 809

13 F.Supp.3d 1038 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 11, 2025), and state whether this case is

14 distinguishable, and if so, in what way. Respondents should also be prepared to

15 discuss whether evidence of risks of flight or danger were presented to the

16 immigration judge in advance of the January 12, 2026, decision and whether

17 Respondents’ exclusive focus on the applicability of either section 235 or section

18 236(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act in the briefing papers submitted to the

19 Board (ECF No. 7-1 at 16-39) means that Respondents have no other grounds for

20 seeking detention.

21

IT IS SO ORDERED. yy

93 | Dated: _ April 29, 2026 ahi A

04 UNITED STATESMAGISTRATE JUDGE

25

26

27

28