Igor Andreyka v. Leonard Oddo, et al.

Summary

The court denied Igor Andreyka’s motion to enforce or reconsider a prior order granting him an individualized immigration bond hearing, or alternatively to permit limited discovery. The court held that the bond hearing satisfied due process because the record was disclosed, counsel was permitted to present arguments, and the immigration judge made an individualized determination; the court lacked jurisdiction to review the discretionary bond decision itself.

Holdings

1. The district court may review whether an immigration bond hearing was fundamentally unfair in violation of due process, but it lacks jurisdiction to review the discretionary determinations underlying the immigration judge's bond decision.
2. The bond hearing was fundamentally fair and satisfied due process because the record was produced and disclosed, Andreyka was permitted to make arguments through counsel, and the immigration judge made an individualized determination based on his circumstances.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the district court had jurisdiction to review the immigration judge's discretionary bond determination.
2. Whether the April 22, 2026 immigration bond hearing was fundamentally unfair and violated due process because Andreyka was not permitted to testify, the immigration judge allegedly lacked neutrality, and the oral and written explanations were allegedly inadequate.
3. Whether the court should enforce or reconsider its prior order or permit limited discovery concerning the bond hearing.

Disposition

other