The fact that the woman has a lawyer now, and presumably will get representation at a new hearing where representation would make a difference, is the key factor in my eyes. I do have to wonder whether an unrepresented petitioner would've received a second chance with this panel.
![1
I use the term “noncitizen” as an equivalent to the word “alien” in the relevant statutes. I do so
because “noncitizen” is not only more appropriately descriptive but also because it is less likely
to carry the same biases. See Keith Cunningham-Parmeter, Alien Language: Immigration
Metaphors and the Jurisprudence of Otherness, 79 FORDHAM L. REV. 1545, 1585 (2011) (“By
appropriating, repackaging, and circulating certain immigration metaphors, [] [c]ourt[s] join[]
other cultural institutions in creating a dominant account of who immigrants are and how they
should be treated.”](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:63qzp63fz5q45anhnxhoxhl5/bafkreigtkidkyhap3e6kadr3qd6tngtjylyk5k6hoicvhw7pfwdf5v6tsq)
![The IJ’s resort to evidence outside the record casts doubt on her finding as to
dangerousness, as well. An IJ must be “a neutral adjudicator, not an investigator filling gaps
in the government’s case.” Abdelmasseh, 2026 WL 1493322, at *2; Bayani, 2026 WL
1270059, at *7 (“[A]n immigration judge has a responsibility to function as a neutral,
impartial arbiter and must be careful to refrain from assuming the role of advocate for either
party.” (quoting Islam v. Gonzales, 469 F.3d 53, 55 (2d Cir. 2006))). By considering
evidence outside the record during the bond hearing, the IJ “certainly create[d] the
appearance that [she] was looking to rationalize a preordained decision to deny bond rather
than conducting a genuinely individualized assessment of Petitioner’s circumstances.”
Garcia Ortiz, 2026 WL 948275, at *3. This appearance is not helped by the petitioner’s
unrebutted assertion that the IJ initially denied him the opportunity to testify at his own bond hearing before relenting. See Lopez-Umanzor v. Gonzales, 405 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:63qzp63fz5q45anhnxhoxhl5/bafkreicowtnzi3snlhmtmie5xkuuab6jsfbvrf4s3vucze65jr4en5tuwu)
![3
I note that the administrative burden Respondents might incur is not analogous to courts’
concerns about congested dockets, as courts generally do not initiate the proceedings in front of
them and rarely set policies that increase or decrease their workload.
4
Chief Judge John J. McConnell Jr. has observed that “[Immigration Judge’s] have faced
enormous pressure from the Executive Branch to dismiss cases quickly and rule in certain ways.”
Garcia v. Hyde, 817 F. Supp. 3d 112, 131 (D.R.I. 2025). I enthusiastically reiterate his response
that “due process is not satisfied by rubberstamp denials of bond[s], and [Immigration Judges]
are not absolved of their duty to ensure that noncitizens receive constitutionally adequate bond
hearings.” Id. (alteration in original) (citation omitted).](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:63qzp63fz5q45anhnxhoxhl5/bafkreibf4i2tgh65jexi3ob6riwyc4cekkr7npejpxeywustz63twqk5wi)
