govinfo:USCOURTS-mdd-1_26-cv-00697-0

1 
 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
 FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND 
 
 * 
SELINDA MOLINA CRUZ, * 
 
 Petitioner , * 
 
 v. * Civ. No. 1:26- cv-00697-PX 
 
PAMELA BONDI et al., * 
 
Respondents. * 
 
*** 
MEMORANDUM ORDER 
 Pending is Petitioner Selinda Molina Cruz (“Molina Cruz”)’s Motion for Order to Show 
Cause, ECF No. 11, in which she contends that because the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) failed to 
provide her a fair and adequate bond hearing, this Court should order Respondents to show cause 
why “this Court should not find that the immigration judge failed to properly consider and weigh 
all the relevant factors related to his finding that Petitioner is a flight risk,” and order Petitioner’s 
release. ECF No. 11-1. For the following reasons, the Motion is DENIED. 
 This Court lacks jurisdiction to review individualized bail review proceedings in the 
absence of a challenge to the constitutionality of the statutory framework itself. See Pinto-Nunez 
v. Bondi, No. CV MJM-26-397, 2026 WL 672770, at *2 (D. Md. Mar. 10, 2026). See also Demore 
v. Kim, 538. U.S. 510, 517 (2003). This Court joins its colleagues in concluding that where, as 
here, Petitioner effectively asks the Court to sit in review of the I J’s decision to deny bond, and 
without any showing that she was denied due process, the Court lacks the power to accord such 
relief. Pinto -Nunez, 2026 WL 672770, at *2 (collecting cases). Rather, Petitioner can, daresay 
must, appeal the denial of the bond to the Board of Immigration Appeals. Miranda v. Garland, 34 
F.4th 338, 347 (4th Cir. 2022) (citing 8 C.F.R. §§ 236.1(d)(3), 1003.19(f), 1236.1(d)(3)). 

2 
 
 
 Petitioner has simply failed to submit any evidence that shows she was denied due process 
during her bond hearing. Nor do the affidavits from a former IJ and current practitioner describing 
an abrupt spike in detentions alter the analysis. As Judge Maddox rightly reasoned, although “the 
affiants’ observations are troubling, and I respect their opinions . . . ultimately, their views have no 
bearing on whether Petitioner received a bond hearing that meets the requirements of due process.” 
Pinto-Nunez, 2026 WL 672770, at *3. 
Further, although the IJ disagreed with Petitioner on the outcome, the Petitioner was 
provided with ample opportunity to be heard in writing and at the hearing; she was accorded access 
to competent counsel; and the IJ issued a decision and explained to Petitioner her appeal rights. 
That Petitioner ultimately disagrees with the result cannot justify this Court’s intervention. 
Accordingly, it is by the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, hereby 
ORDERED that: 
1. Petitioner Selinda Molina Cruz’ Motion for an Order to Show Cause is DENIED; and 
2. The Clerk is DIRECTED to CLOSE this case. 
 
 05/11/2026 /s/ 
Date P AULA XINIS 
 United States District Judge 
 

Passage view · GavelSight