govinfo:USCOURTS-pawd-3_26-cv-00285-0

- 1 - 
 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 
 
RAUL TAPIA RODRIGUEZ, 
 
 Petitioner, 
 
 v. 
 
PAMELA BONDI; 
et al., 
 
 Respondents. 
 
)
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
 
 
 
3:26-CV-285 
 
 
ORDER 
 Before the Court is Petitioner’s motion to enforce (ECF 12) this Court’s March 
25, 2026, order (ECF 11) . Petitioner is a noncitizen native of Mexico detained at 
Moshannon Valley Detention Center. Petitioner requested an individualized bond 
hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226. ECF 1. 1 On March 25, 2026, the Court found that 
Petitioner’s detention is authorized under Section 1226, not Section 1225, and so 
issued a conditional writ of habeas corpus and ordered Respondents to provide an 
individualized bond hearing in front of an Immigration Judge. ECF 11. 
Petitioner received a bond hearing pursuant to this Court’s March 25, 2026, 
order on April 8, 2026. ECF 12 -3. At that hearing, the IJ denied Petitioner bond 
because the IJ determined he is a flight risk. Id. Petitioner challenges the IJ’s denial 
of bond, arguing that his bond hearing was unconstitutional in violation of his Fifth 
Amendment right to due process. ECF 12 at 2– 3. The Court has carefully reviewed 
the transcript of the April 8, 2026, bond hearing, and DENIES Petitioner’s motion to 
enforce (ECF 12) for the reasons below. 
 Federal courts “lack jurisdiction to review any discretionary determinations 
underlying the IJ’s bond decision,” and may only “review whether the bond hearing 
 
1 Petitioner also motioned for a preliminary injunction (ECF 8) on February 27, 
2026, which this Court denied (ECF 9). 

- 2 - 
 
was fundamentally fair.” Ghanem v. Warden Essex Cnty. Corr. Facility, No. 21-1908, 
2022 WL 574624, at *2 (3d Cir. Feb. 25, 2022); see also Quinteros v. Warden Pike 
Cnty. Corr. Facility, 784 F. App’x 75, 78 (3d Cir. 2019) (“Because we lack jurisdiction 
to review any discretionary determinations underlying the IJ’s bond decision, we are 
limited to reviewing only those [] challenges that pertain to the adequacy of process 
[appellant] received at his bond hearing.”). 
A Section 1226 bond hearing is fundamentally fair when three essential 
elements are present : (1) factfinding based on a record produced be fore the 
decisionmaker and disclosed to him or her; (2) the detainee must be allowed to make 
arguments on his or her behalf; and (3) the IJ makes an individualized determination 
of the detainee’s interests. 
Ghanem, 2022 WL 574624 at *2; see also Quinteros, 784 
F. App’x at 78. The Court considers whether Petitioner’s April 8, 2026, bond hearing 
was fundamentally fair under this framework. 
 There is no dispute that the first two elements were met here. Petitioner 
argues under prong three that the IJ did no t make an individualized determination 
based on Petitioner’s interests . ECF 12 -1 at 4 –5. The IJ denied bond because 
Petitioner is a flight risk due to two factors: (1) Petitioner has a low likelihood of 
success on appeal (“He has been ordered removed from the United States. The Court 
has reviewed the evidence and I’m not making any new findings or anything of that 
nature, but I’m looking at whether or not there’s any reasonable chance of success on 
appeal, and I don’t see that there is. So that makes the respondent a significant flight 
risk.”); and (2) Petitioner has been in the United States for 20 years and has remained 
undetected by law enforcement until recently ( “He was able to reside safely in a 
location and establish this life in the United States without being detected by 
immigration…there’s a greater chance that respondent will simply take that risk 
again, rather than appear for any removal order when he’s been told he can’t stay.”). 
ECF 12-3 at 6–7. 

- 3 - 
 
 The Court finds that Petitioner’s bond hearing was fundamentally fair under 
prong three because the IJ explained his reasons for denying bond, including not only 
finding that Petitioner is a flight risk, but providing his reasons supporting that 
finding.2 
Petitioner received a fair hearing. This Court lacks jurisdiction to re-weigh the 
IJ’s determination on the merits. Ghanem, 2022 WL 574624, at *2 (“A motion to 
enforce a judgment is not the proper avenue to relitigate the merits of a bond order.”) 
For these reasons, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s motion to enforce (ECF 12). 
DATED this 18th day of March, 2026. 
BY THE COURT: 
 
/s/ J. Nicholas Ranjan 
United States District Judge 
 
 
2 By contrast, some district courts have held that where the IJ makes a finding of 
“flight risk” without providing any reasons, that this violates due process. Compare 
Zheng v. Rokosky, No. 26-CV-01689, 2026 WL 800203, , at *5 (D.N.J. Mar. 23, 2026 
(finding petitioner’s bond hearing fundamentally unfair because the IJ “failed to 
provide any explanation whatsoever for her supposed alternative holding that 
Petitioner is a flight risk, and by all appearances acted as a ‘mere rubber-stamp,’ for 
Respondents’ predetermined decision to deny bond.”); 
Vera-Velez v. Louis Soto , No. 
26CV1480 (EP) (MAH), 2026 WL 963348, at *1 (D.N.J. Apr. 9, 2026) (granting 
petitioner’s motion to enforce because no bond hearing transcript existed, and 
ordering respondents to provide petitioner with a new bond hearing before a different 
immigration judge with instructions that respondents bear the burden of 
demonstrating petitioner is a flight risk or danger to the community). 

Passage view · GavelSight