Filed: Mar. 06, 2017
Latest Update: Mar. 06, 2017
Summary: NOT FOR PUBLICATION ORDER JOHN J. TUCHI , District Judge . At issue is Magistrate Judge Bridget S. Bade's Report and Recommendation (R&R) in this matter filed February 8, 2017 (Doc. 26). The R&R recommends that the Court deny Carlos Gomez-Ochoa's Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 22). The R&R clearly advised Petitioner that he had fourteen days from the date of service of a copy of the R&R to file any specific written objections. Fed. R. Civ. Pr. 72. Petitioner filed no obje
Summary: NOT FOR PUBLICATION ORDER JOHN J. TUCHI , District Judge . At issue is Magistrate Judge Bridget S. Bade's Report and Recommendation (R&R) in this matter filed February 8, 2017 (Doc. 26). The R&R recommends that the Court deny Carlos Gomez-Ochoa's Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 22). The R&R clearly advised Petitioner that he had fourteen days from the date of service of a copy of the R&R to file any specific written objections. Fed. R. Civ. Pr. 72. Petitioner filed no objec..
More
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
ORDER
JOHN J. TUCHI, District Judge.
At issue is Magistrate Judge Bridget S. Bade's Report and Recommendation (R&R) in this matter filed February 8, 2017 (Doc. 26). The R&R recommends that the Court deny Carlos Gomez-Ochoa's Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 22). The R&R clearly advised Petitioner that he had fourteen days from the date of service of a copy of the R&R to file any specific written objections. Fed. R. Civ. Pr. 72. Petitioner filed no objections, and the time to do so is now long past. Petitioner has therefore waived his right to de novo consideration of the issues per United States v. Rayna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1141, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003)(en banc), and the Court may accept the R&R without further review. Nonetheless, the Court has conducted a review on the merits of the issues involved. It finds that Magistrate Judge Bade's reasoning and analysis are correctly applied to the procedural situation.
Petitioner challenges the Immigration Judge's (IJ's) decisions at bond redetermination hearings involving Petitioner in January and September 2016, arguing that his procedural due process rights were violated at each hearing. (Doc. 22.) As Judge Bade correctly concluded and recommended, Petitioner has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with respect to the September 2016 hearing, which is still on appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) and it is thus not properly before this Court. Even if Petitioner's claim regarding the September 2016 IJ hearing were properly exhausted, however, it, like the claim involving the January 2016 IJ hearing, would fail. As Judge Bade set forth in the R&R, Petitioner received Rodriguez hearings, thus satisfying the procedural due process requirements, and in those hearings the IJ set forth multi-faceted justifications for the IJ's rulings that properly considered not only Petitioner's criminal history but risk to the community and other required factors in the calculus. The Court, for all of the above reasons, will deny and dismiss the Amended Petition.
IT IS ORDERED denying and dismissing the Amended Petition in this matter (Doc. 22) and instructing the Clerk to close the matter.
