Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-03201/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-03201-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2255 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GOPAL SINGH,

Petitioner, No. C 07-3201 PJH

v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

ALBERTO GONZALES, Attorney 

General of the United States, et al.,

Respondents.

_______________________________/

On June 18, 2007, petitioner Gopal Singh filed the above-entitled petition for writ of

habeas corpus and complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief. Petitioner, who is subject

to a final order of removal, has been held by Immigration and Custom Enforcement (ICE) at

the Department of Homeland Security Detention facility in Marysville, California, since

March 26, 2007, pursuant to ICE’s authority under the post-removal detention statute. 

On December 20, 2005, petitioner filed an application for temporary resident status

pursuant to INA § 245A. Petitioner alleges that he has established a prima facie case for

temporary resident status in the United States, and that under INA § 245A(e)(2) he may not

be deported and must be granted authorization to engage in employment in the United

States. 

Petitioner asserts that under Zadvaydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 701 (2001), the

United States is allowed a presumptively reasonable period of detention of up to six months

to effectuate removal of an alien who is subject to a final removal order. Petitioner

contends that because his removal is not reasonably foreseeable, based on the pendency

Case 4:07-cv-03201-PJH Document 2 Filed 07/11/07 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

of his temporary residence status application, respondents must release him from

detention. 

He also asserts that under Sissoko v. Rocha, 412 F.3d 1021, 1033 (9th Cir. 2005),

and notwithstanding the provisions of the REAL ID Act, Pub. L. No. 109-13, 119 Stat. 231,

§ 106(a), this court has jurisdiction over this petition, because the detention is independent

of challenges to a removal order. 

Petitioner alleges further that the court has jurisdiction under the Administrative

Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 702, because this action arises from a legal wrong that resulted

from an agency action.

Good cause appearing, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

(1) The Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this order and the petition upon

counsel for respondents, the Office of the United States Attorney. The Clerk shall also

serve a copy of this order on petitioner.

2. Respondents shall file with the court and serve on petitioner, within 60 days of

the date of this order, an answer showing why a writ of habeas corpus should not be

issued. Respondents shall file with the answer and serve on petitioner a copy of all

portions of the administrative record that are relevant to a determination of the issues

presented by the petition.

3. If the petitioner wishes to respond to the answer, he shall do so by filing a

traverse with the court and serving it on respondents within 30 days of his receipt of the

answer.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 11, 2007 ______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:07-cv-03201-PJH Document 2 Filed 07/11/07 Page 2 of 2