Western District of Pennsylvania • 3:26-cv-00856

#1

May 08, 2026

Renewed PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Filing fee, including Administrative fee, $5, receipt number APAWDC-9563149), filed by RONY ALEXANDER PEREZ BLANCO. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet) (Cahillane, Christopher) (Entered: 05/08/2026)

May 08, 2026

Judge Christy Criswell Wiegand added. (elt)

#2

May 12, 2026

Case Management Order

May 14, 2026

Order

#7

May 20, 2026

ORDER DENYING 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. On 3/24/2026, Petitioner, a noncitizen detained by Respondents at Moshannon Valley Processing Center, filed his first petition for writ of habeas corpus in this Court. See Perez Blanco v. Warden, No. 3:26-cv-515, ECF No. 1 (Wiegand J.). On 4/1/2026, the Court granted in part and denied in part Petitioner's first petition and ordered that Petitioner receive an individualized bond hearing. No. 3:26-cv-515, ECF No. 8. On 4/6/2026, Petitioner received a bond hearing before an immigration judge ("IJ") at which the IJ denied bond based on a finding that Petitioner was a flight risk. No. 3:26-cv-515, ECF No. 9. Now, in his second 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Petitioner requests his immediate release him from custody or, in the alternative, another bond hearing. Petitioner avers that the IJ determined that Petitioner was a flight risk because the IJ found that Petitioner was unlikely to prevail in his pending application for asylum and withholding of removal. Id. para. 5. Petitioner contends that, contrary to the IJ's finding, he has a strong likelihood of obtaining asylum. Id. para. 6. Thus, according to Petitioner, the IJ erred in denying bond and he is entitled to a new bond hearing. Id. Federal courts "lack jurisdiction to review any discretionary determinations underlying the IJ's bond decision," and may only "review whether the bond hearing was fundamentally unfair" such that it violates the detainee's due process rights. 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). The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has advised that a bond hearing is "fundamentally fair," and thus satisfies due process, if three essential elements are present: (1) factfinding based on a record produced before the decisionmaker and disclosed to the detainee; (2) the detainee is 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. Accordingly, this Court's review of the 4/6/2026 bond hearing is limited to considering whether the hearing was fundamentally fair under Ghanem. Petitioner, who bears the burden of showing he is entitled to relief, does not allege any facts suggesting the 4/6/2026 bond hearing lacked the three essential elements of a fundamentally fair bond hearing. Nor has Petitioner provided the Court with a recording or transcript of the 4/6/2026 bond hearing that would allow the Court to determine whether the hearing had the three essential elements of a fundamentally fair bond hearing. Petitioner's only specific objection to the 4/6/2026 bond hearing is his disagreement with the IJ's determination that Petitioner is unlikely to succeed in his asylum application. Petitioner must raise that challenge to BIA, not this Court. See 8 U.S.C. § 1226(e) ("No court may set aside any action or decision by the Attorney General under this section regarding the detention of any alien or the revocation or denial of bond or parole."); see also De Souza v. Soto, No. CV 25-18734 (JXN), 2026 WL 102946, at *3 (D.N.J. Jan. 14, 2026) ("Any challenge to the IJ's denial of bond must be presented to the Board of Immigration Appeals."). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the 1 Petition is DENIED. Signed by Judge Christy Criswell Wiegand on 5/20/2026. Text-only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text-only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (bjw) (Entered: 05/20/2026)

#8

May 20, 2026

FINAL JUDGMENT entered consistent with the above order (ECF No. 7). Signed by Judge Christy Criswell Wiegand on 5/20/2026. Text-only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text-only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (bjw) (Entered: 05/20/2026)

May 20, 2026

Order

May 20, 2026

Order Dismissing Case