Background
Juan Bacilio Gaspar, a noncitizen detained at the Golden State Annex ICE Detention Facility, previously obtained habeas relief in the Eastern District of California. On June 23, 2026, the court adopted a magistrate judge's findings and recommendations and ordered the government to provide Gaspar a constitutionally compliant bond hearing before an immigration judge, with the Department of Homeland Security bearing the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that he was a flight risk or danger to the community, and with at least 72 hours' notice.
Gaspar received written notice on June 24, 2026, and appeared pro se before an immigration judge on July 1, 2026. The IJ stated on the record that the hearing was held pursuant to the district court's order and that the clear-and-convincing burden rested on DHS. DHS cited Gaspar's criminal record dating to 2017, an alleged sexual assault of another detainee in December 2024, the absence of a sponsor, and the fact that he had already been ordered removed. Gaspar disputed the assault allegation, described rehabilitation efforts, and noted that his parents and son are U.S. citizens. The IJ found that DHS had proved by clear and convincing evidence that Gaspar posed both a danger and a flight risk, denied bond, and issued a written order on August 4, 2026.
Gaspar then moved to enforce the court's judgment, arguing the hearing violated the order because he allegedly lacked 72 hours' notice and because the bond hearing immediately followed his removal merits hearing; he also moved for appointment of counsel. The government did not substantively oppose the enforcement motion but submitted the hearing audio and custody-redetermination records.
The Court’s Holding
The court first waived the prudential exhaustion requirement for the Section 2241 enforcement motion, citing irreparable harm from prolonging an already lengthy detention, but emphasized that the waiver did not expand the narrow scope of review. Review was limited to whether the bond hearing was constitutionally adequate as required by the prior order. Under abuse-of-discretion review, the court asks whether the IJ applied the correct legal standard and whether the decision reflects clear legal error or is unsupported by sufficient evidence, not whether the evidence should be reweighed.
On the merits, the court found that Gaspar had not demonstrated that the government failed to comply with its prior habeas order or that the IJ abused his discretion in a way that violated due process. His notice argument failed because written notice on June 24, 2026 gave a full week, exceeding the required 72 hours. His argument that the bond hearing should not have immediately followed the removal merits hearing was unsupported by legal authority and rested on a hypothetical scenario; even if the bond hearing had occurred first, he could not show prejudice because the record supported the IJ's clear-and-convincing findings on danger and flight risk.
The court denied the motion to appoint counsel under 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B), concluding that because Gaspar had failed to demonstrate any legal basis for finding noncompliance with its order, the interests of justice did not require appointment of counsel. Both motions were denied and the case remained closed.
Key Takeaways
- A district court that conditionally grants habeas relief ordering a bond hearing retains authority to review compliance with that order, but its review is narrow: whether the immigration judge applied the correct legal standard and whether the decision reflects clear legal error or is unsupported by sufficient evidence.
- A petitioner challenging the adequacy of a bond hearing on due process grounds must show prejudice—that the alleged violation potentially affected the outcome—and cannot rely on hypothetical scenarios untethered from the actual record.
- Courts may waive prudential exhaustion for a Section 2241 enforcement motion challenging bond-hearing compliance where prolonged detention causes irreparable harm, but that waiver does not broaden the scope of substantive review.
- Where a court's prior order required 72 hours' notice of a bond hearing, written notice provided a week in advance satisfies that requirement.
- A motion to appoint counsel in a habeas case under 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B) will be denied where the petitioner has failed to demonstrate any legal basis for the underlying relief sought.
Why It Matters
This order illustrates the limited role of district courts in policing compliance with conditional habeas grants in immigration detention cases. Even after ordering a bond hearing with specific procedural safeguards, the court will not second-guess the immigration judge's discretionary determinations or entertain arguments that amount to relitigating the bond decision under a different label.
The decision also underscores the practical difficulty detained pro se petitioners face in challenging bond-hearing outcomes: without a showing of legal error or prejudice, enforcement motions and requests for appointed counsel are unlikely to succeed.
Read the full opinion (PDF) · Court docket