NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 15 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FAOUR ABDALLAH FRAIHAT, No. 18-56075 Petitioner-Appellant, D.C. No. 5:17-cv-01370-VAP-KS v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General; et MEMORANDUM* al., Respondents-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Virginia A. Phillips, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted November 13, 2019 Pasadena, California Before: FERNANDEZ, M. SMITH, and MILLER, Circuit Judges. Faour Abdallah Fraihat, a native and citizen of Jordan, challenges his detention during the course of his removal proceedings. He seeks review of the district court’s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253. We affirm. 1. We first hold that the district court lacked jurisdiction to review the * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. agency’s denial of Fraihat’s release on bond based on its determination that Fraihat is a danger to the community. See 8 U.S.C. § 1226(e); Nielsen v. Preap, 139 S. Ct. 954, 962 (2019). In 2017, Fraihat received two bond hearings: a custody redetermination hearing, and, pertinent to this habeas petition, a hearing under Rodriguez v. Robbins, 804 F.3d 1060, 1074 (9th Cir. 2015), rev’d sub nom. Jennings v. Rodriguez, 138 S. Ct. 830 (2018), just after his detention reached six months. The immigration judge determined that Fraihat was a danger to the community and denied bond under Matter of Guerra, 24 I. & N. Dec. 37, 40 (BIA 2006). The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed. Section 1226(e) provides that “[t]he Attorney General’s discretionary judgment regarding” detention of aliens pending removal proceedings “shall not be subject to review,” and that “[n]o court may set aside” such a decision by the Attorney General “regarding the detention or release of any alien or the grant, revocation, or denial of bond or parole.” Fraihat argues that the agency’s decision rested on a legally erroneous interpretation of his 2013 conviction and his criminal history, not on a discretionary judgment, and that it is therefore reviewable. See Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1196, 1202 (9th Cir. 2011). But even if we were to agree that the agency somehow committed legal error in its evaluation of some of Fraihat’s convictions, we would be unable to consider the seriousness of any error 2 without reweighing the evidence underlying the determination that Fraihat’s conduct presents a danger to the community—a task we have no jurisdiction to perform. Nor does Fraihat raise a “mixed” question of law and fact that would permit us to consider the application of the law to “undisputed historical facts.” Ramadan v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 646, 654 (9th Cir. 2007) (per curiam). To the contrary, he challenges the agency’s interpretation of his conviction record and asks that we find him not dangerous. That challenge is barred by Section 1226(e). 2. Section 1226(e) ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals