The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 ALEIXI RODRIGUEZ ESTEVEZ, Case No.: 3:26-cv-1038-CAB-SBC
12 Petitioner,
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
13 v. CUSTODY REVIEW
14 CHRISTOPHER J. LAROSE,
[Doc. No. 12]
15 Respondent.
16
17 In response to his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, the Court ordered that
18 Petitioner receive a bond hearing due to his prolonged detention. [Doc. No. 5.] Petitioner
19 received a bond hearing on April 20, 2026; the immigration judge (“IJ”) denied bond due
20 to a risk of flight and Petitioner reserved appeal with the Board of Immigration Appeals
21 (“BIA”). [Doc. No. 10.]
22 Petitioner has now moved the Court for an updated custody determination because
23 while he did not have a sponsor and release plan at the time of his bond hearing, he now
24 does. [Doc. No. 12.] As the Ninth Circuit has explained, “[Petitioner] pursued habeas
25 review of the IJ’s adverse bond determination before appealing to the BIA. This short cut
26 was improper. [Petitioner] should have exhausted administrative remedies by appealing to
27 the BIA before asking the federal district court to review the IJ’s decision.” Leonardo v.
28 Crawford, 646 F.3d 1157, 1160 (9th Cir. 2011).
1 The Court therefore DENIES Petitioner’s motion for an updated custody
2 || determination.
3 Itis SO ORDERED.
4 || Dated: August 5, 2026 (Kyge—
5 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo
6 United States District Judge
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28