# Opinion > District Court, E.D. California · June 5, 2026 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11387391 ## Case - **Full name:** Ryan Cesar Albert Hinostroza Velasquez v. Warden, California City Correctional Center, et al. - **Court:** District Court, E.D. California - **Decided:** June 5, 2026 - **Opinion:** 100trialcourt - **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11387391 ## Opinion text 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RYAN CESAR ALBERT HINOSTROZA No. 1:26-cv-03246-DJC-SCR VELASQUEZ, 12 13 Petitioner, ORDER 14 v. 15 WARDEN, CALIFORNIA CITY CORRECTIONAL CENTER, et al., 16 Respondents. 17 18 19 Petitioner Ryan Cesar Albert Hinostroza Velasquez brings a Petition for Writ of 20 Habeas Corpus and a Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. The Court informed 21 the parties that it intended to rule on the merits of the Petition. As explained below, 22 the Petition is DENIED. 23 //// 24 //// 25 //// 26 //// 27 //// 28 //// 1 BACKGROUND 2 Petitioner Ryan Cesar Albert Hinostroza Velasquez previously filed a petition for 3 writ of habeas corpus in this Court. (Pet. for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1), 4 Hinostroza Velasquez v. Warden, No. 1:26-cv-02364-DJC-SCR (E.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 5 2026).) This Court granted the petition as to the due process claim and ordered 6 Respondents to provide Petitioner with a constitutionally adequate bond hearing 7 before an Immigration Judge where the Government would bear the burden of proof. 8 (See id. at Prior Order (ECF No. 8).) The case was closed on April 3, 2026, and 9 judgment was entered the same day. (Id.; J. (ECF No. 9).) Petitioner received a bond 10 hearing on April 8, 2026. (IJ Order (ECF No. 9-2), Hinostroza Velasquez v. Warden, 11 No. 1:26-cv-03246-DJC-SCR (E.D. Cal. Apr. 28, 2026).) The Immigration Judge 12 denied bond, concluding that Petitioner was a danger to the community. (See 13 generally IJ Order.) On April 28, 2026, Petitioner filed a new Petition in this Court and 14 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. (Pet. (ECF No. 1); Mot. TRO (ECF No. 2).) 15 Respondents filed an Opposition on May 4, 2026. (Opp’n (ECF No. 9).) On May 28, 16 2026, Respondents lodged the audio recording from the underlying bond hearing. 17 (ECF No. 10.) 18 LEGAL STANDARD 19 In constitutional challenges to an Immigration Judge’s detention determination, 20 a habeas court generally reviews mixed questions of fact and law under an “abuse of 21 discretion” standard. Martinez v. Clark, 124 F.4th 775, 784 (9th Cir. 2024). This type of 22 review does not involve “reweigh[ing] evidence” but rather determining whether the 23 Immigration Judge “applied the correct legal standard.” Id. (citation and quotations 24 omitted). “In reviewing the IJ’s determination, a district court may not second guess 25 the IJ’s weighing of the evidence. . . review is limited to whether the IJ’s decision 26 ‘reflects clear legal error or is unsupported by sufficient evidence.’” Quan v. Barr, No. 27 20-cv-08118-LB, 2021 WL 308610, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 2021) (citation and 28 quotations omitted). The reviewing court must bear in mind that “the government’s 1 discretion to incarcerate non-citizens is always constrained by the requirements of due 2 process.” Hernandez v. Sessions, 872 F.3d 976, 981 (9th Cir. 2017). Courts may 3 review an Immigration Judge’s finding that an alien poses a flight risk for abuse of 4 discretion. See Zaitsev v. Warden, No. 2:26-cv-00454-SPG-AS, 2026 WL 391429, at 5 *10 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 9, 2026) (collecting cases). 6 DISCUSSION 7 Petitioner challenges the bond hearing he received, contending that it lacked 8 individualized analysis and did not meet due process standards. (Pet. at 4.) In turn, 9 Respondents limit their opposition to administrative exhaustion, contending Petitioner 10 should pursue relief through an administrative appeal to the Board of Immigration 11 Appeals. (See generally Opp’n.) 12 As the Court has concluded in other cases, administrative exhaustion is not 13 warranted here. To the extent Petitioner challenges the constitutional adequacy of the 14 bond hearing he received, the Court retains jurisdiction to enforce its prior orders. 15 Saldana Meza v. Warden, No. 1:26-cv-00800-DJC-EFB, 2026 WL 1430934, at *2 (E.D. 16 Cal. May 21, 2026) (waiving exhaustion and reviewing immigration court’s findings for 17 abuse of discretion); but see C.A.R.V. v. Wofford, No. 1:25-cv-01395-JLT-SKO, 2026 18 WL 241823, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 2026) (declining to apply “prior order” carveout 19 but excusing exhaustion). 20 Applying the legal standards identified above, the Court concludes that the 21 Immigration Judge did not abuse his discretion in denying Petitioner’s bond. The 22 audio recording reflects that the Immigration Judge cited the correct legal standard 23 and explicitly required the Government to bear the burden of proof. The Immigration 24 Judge heard argument from both parties and reviewed the evidentiary record 25 presented before him. (See generally Audio Recording.) Specifically, the Immigration 26 Judge concluded that Petitioner was a danger to the community because of a 27 December 2025 conviction in Utah in which Petitioner, as an adult, took minor 28 students in his car on to school property to fight another student who was allegedly 1 | being a bully. (Audio Recording at 31:27-33:40.) The record reflects that Petitioner 2 | acknowledged this conviction of criminal trespass as well as other convictions for 3 | disorderly conduct and contributing to the delinquency of a minor. The record also 4 | reflects that after considering all the evidence, the Immigration Judge concluded that 5 | Petitioner was a danger to the community. Because this Court's review is limited to 6 | whether the Immigration Judge applied the correct standard, which the record 7 | establishes that he did, the Court concludes that there is no legal error. Moreover, the 8 | Immigration Judge did not abuse his discretion in his decision to deny bond because 9 | the dangerousness finding as to Petitioner is supported by sufficient evidence. 10 ORDER 11 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner's Petition for 12 | Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1) is DENIED. The Clerk of Court is directed to 13 | CLOSE this case and enter judgment for Respondents. This Order resolves all 14 | pending motions. 15 16 IT 1S SO ORDERED. 17 | Dated: _ June 5, 2026 “Dane J CoO □□□□ Hon. Daniel alabretta 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11387391. Public record. Not legal advice.