Tzompa Garcia: Enforcing the Court-Ordered Bond Burden

Read the filed August 4, 2026 order (PDF).

A timely hearing still had to follow the court’s order

This case reached District Judge Regina M. Rodriguez on a Motion to Traverse—a filing asking the court to examine whether its earlier habeas order was actually followed. The court had already granted Jassiel Tzompa Garcia’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus and had directed the government to hold a bond hearing by July 7, 2026. The narrow question before the court in this order was not whether Mr. Garcia should be detained, but whether the bond hearing the Immigration Judge conducted satisfied the specific legal standard the court had previously required. The court found it did not and ordered his immediate release.

The record mixed arrests, pending charges and one conviction

The district court’s July 2, 2026 habeas order required a bond hearing by July 7. The immigration judge held the hearing on time but denied bond in a brief custody order and a later memorandum relying largely on a government-prepared arrest history. The record included old, dismissed, pending, and adjudicated matters. The district court examined whether that record, and the immigration judge’s explanation of it, satisfied the required clear-and-convincing burden rather than treating every listed arrest as proof of dangerousness.

What did the earlier bond order require?

Did the bond hearing Immigration Judge Masters conducted comply with the court’s order requiring the government to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Garcia is a danger to the community or a flight risk?

The parties disputed compliance with the required standard

Mr. Garcia argued through his Motion to Traverse that the bond hearing did not meet the court-ordered standard because the Immigration Judge’s written decision listed arrests without explaining which evidence she relied upon or how that evidence met the heightened burden. The government’s status report said a hearing occurred and bond was denied, but did not include the hearing documents. The court then ordered the parties to file them, and the petitioner supplied them. The order identifies who produced the evidence; it does not say the government later supplied it.

Enforcing the order differed from reweighing bond evidence

The court applied the clear-and-convincing-evidence standard it had imposed in its earlier habeas order under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). It relied on the definition of that standard from Mejia v. Baltazar, 2026 WL 1361514 (D. Colo. May 15, 2026), which in turn quoted United States v. Dear, 104 F.4th 145 (10th Cir. 2024), for the proposition that clear and convincing evidence means the fact is “highly probable.” The court also cited Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1196 (9th Cir. 2011), for the principle that not all criminal convictions automatically establish present dangerousness. The court acknowledged, citing Asfir v. Blanche, No. 1:26-cv-01435-GPG (D. Colo. July 2, 2026) (slip op.), and Soberanes v. Comfort, 388 F.3d 1305 (10th Cir. 2004), that it cannot second-guess how an Immigration Judge weighs evidence—but that it retains authority to confirm its own orders were followed.

A list of arrests did not explain present dangerousness

The court identified two interrelated problems with the bond decision. First, the written decision did not specify which pieces of evidence the Immigration Judge found sufficient to meet the clear-and-convincing standard. It was impossible to determine whether she relied on the single 2021 conviction, the dismissed charges, the pending matters, or all of them together. Second, the decision did not explain how those items—most of which were arrests rather than convictions, many of them old or unresolved—demonstrated that Mr. Garcia presented a present and ongoing danger. The court noted that criminal conduct from years ago, without more, does not automatically justify continued detention under the heightened standard. The absence of that explicit analysis meant the court could not confirm its order had been followed.

The court found that its bond order had not been followed

The court held that Respondents failed to comply with its order to provide a bond hearing at which the government proved by clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Garcia is a flight risk or danger to the community.

Immediate release and an August 7 compliance report

The Motion to Traverse was granted. The court ordered Respondents to immediately release Mr. Garcia from detention. On or before August 7, 2026, Respondents were required to file a status report certifying compliance with the release order.

The court left ICWC class membership undecided

The separate class action Immigration Center for Women and Children v. Noem (“ICWC”), No. 2:25-cv-09848-AB-AS, 351 F.R.D. 324 (C.D. Cal. 2026), concerns federal immigration enforcement against certain people with pending U-visa, T-visa, or VAWA matters and certain grants of deferred action. Tzompa Garcia invoked his pending U-visa petition, but the court expressly declined to decide whether he fell within an ICWC class or qualified for that case’s relief. It ordered release because the bond decision did not satisfy the required burden. The order therefore is not authority establishing ICWC membership. It also did not decide removability, pending charges, or whether a compliant future bond hearing could reach a different result.