Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00713/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00713-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 463
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus - Alien Detainee
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Ali Partovi, 

Petitioner,

vs.

Eric H. Holder, Jr.; Janet Napolitano;

Katrina Kane, 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV 09-0713-PHX-SRB (DKD)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

TO THE HONORABLE SUSAN R. BOLTON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:

Ali Partovi filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on

April 6, 2009, arguing that although he has been granted relief from removal, the government

refuses to release him, and that his continued detention violates his constitutional rights.

Respondents contend that the petition should be dismissed because (1) res judicata bars

federal review; (2) it is a prohibited successive petition; and (3) his steadfast refusal to

cooperate in obtaining travel documents justifies his continued detention. The Court will

construe Partovi’s petition as a claim alleging that his continued detention is in violation of

Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001), and recommends that his petition be denied and

dismissed with prejudice.

BACKGROUND

On October 22, 2001, Partovi applied for admission to the United States at Guam,

coming from Japan, claiming to be a citizen of Iran, and using a fraudulent passport bearing

Case 2:09-cv-00713-SRB Document 30 Filed 05/04/10 Page 1 of 6
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 -

the name “Michelle Franchini” (Doc. #18, Exh 1). During detention by the then Immigration

and Naturalization Service (INS), Partovi claimed to be an Armenian Catholic, born in 1968,

who could not return to Iran because of his religious beliefs (Id., Exh 2). He was paroled into

the United States for prosecution and placed into removal proceedings for a consideration

of his applications for asylum, withholding and protection under the Convention Against

Torture (Id., Exh 3).

In an attempt to verify Partovi’s identity, the FBI learned from the Japanese National

Police Agency that Partovi had a registration card issued by a Japanese municipality and that

he had been married to and divorced from a Japanese national in the mid-1990's. The police

also informed the FBI that Partovi had been arrested in 1994 for stealing a bicycle in

Kodaira, Japan (Id., Exh 4). On October 22, 2001, the government referred Partovi to the

immigration court for an asylum hearing (Id., Exh 5). On October 24, 2001, during his FBI

interview, Partovi stated that he had applied to the Tokyo United Nations Office as a refugee

in July, 2001. He also stated that he had applied for asylum at the Canadian Embassy in

Tokyo (Id., Exh 4). However, both the Tokyo Office of the United Nations High Command

for Refugees and the Canadian Embassy informed the FBI that no such application had been

made by anyone using Partovi’s name (Id.).

On November 14, 2001, Partovi was indicted for using a false passport to attempt to

enter the United States; on April 17, 2002, he was convicted following a guilty plea in U.S.

District Court for the District of Guam and sentenced to serve 175 days (Id., Exh 6, 7). On

May 3, 2002, the immigration judge denied Partovi’s application for asylum, finding it

frivolous. In addition he also denied Partovi’s requests for withholding of removal and found

that he was ineligible for deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture (Id., Exh

8). Partovi reserved appeal; the appeal was due at the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA)

by June 3, 2002 (Id.). On June 4, 2003, Partovi filed a motion for redetermination of custody

with the immigration court; on June 10, 2003, the immigration judge denied the motion (Id.,

Exh 9). Partovi did not appeal to the BIA and on August 29, 2007, the Ninth Circuit Court

Case 2:09-cv-00713-SRB Document 30 Filed 05/04/10 Page 2 of 6
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 - 3 -

of Appeals denied Partovi’s petition for review; on December 20, 2007, the court denied

panel rehearing (Id., Exh 66). On March 31, 2008, Partovi filed a Motion to Reissue the May

3, 2002 decision before the immigration judge; on August 1, 2008 the immigration judge

denied it (Id., Exh 10). On August 28, 2008, he appealed to the BIA; on November 12, 2008

the BIA dismissed the appeal (Id., Exh 11).

On March 10, 2003, the INS sent a letter to the Interests Section of the Islamic

Republic of Iran at the Pakistan Embassy requesting a travel document for Partovi. All

Iranian citizens with final orders of removal were to be interviewed by embassy

representatives in Florence, Arizona during the week of March 10, 2003 (Id., Exh 12). On

March 14, 2003, Partovi was summoned to appear and refused to enter the room, and after

being escorted into the room, refused to sign any paperwork presented to him, including a

Warning for Failure to Depart form. He also refused to be fingerprinted, and was physically

forced to do so by immigration agents (Id.). On September 16, 2003, Immigration and

Customs Enforcement (ICE) issued a Notice of Failure to Comply, which was received by

Partovi on September 29, 2003 (Id., Exh 13). On February 20, 2004, Iranian authorities

notified ICE that a travel document could not be issued because Partovi did not submit either

a birth certificate or an Iranian passport (Id., Exh 13).

On April 30, 2004, Partovi was served with another Warning for Failure to Depart and

an Instruction Sheet to Detainee Regarding Requirement to Assist in Removal. He refused

to sign both documents; on May 10, 2004, he refused to complete a request for travel

documents (Id., Exh 15). Over the next five years, Partovi was served on 32 occasions with

the above-mentioned warning and instruction sheet, often in conjunction with a Notice of

File Custody Review. Each time he refused to sign both documents, and at least 9 times his

refusal was followed by service of a Notice of Failure to Comply (Id., Exh 16-61). On

March 14, 2007, ICE served Partovi with a Release Notification and Order of Supervision.

On March 28, 2007, he refused to sign the forms acknowledging the conditions of

supervision, and was not released (Id., Exh 45). On May 15, 2009, ICE issued an Order of

Case 2:09-cv-00713-SRB Document 30 Filed 05/04/10 Page 3 of 6
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 - 4 -

Supervision allowing Partovi to be released from detention pending his removal to Iran. The

Department cancelled the order because Partovi was being investigated by the FBI (Id., Exh

63, 64). On May 28, 2009, Partovi was again offered release on an Order of Supervision.

The government had arranged for temporary housing in Pennsylvania through a social

service agency; Partovi refused the offer because he did not want to live in Pennsylvania (Id.,

Exh 64). Finally, on June 5, 2009, the Department served Partovi a Notice of File Custody

Review, an Instruction Sheet to Detainee Regarding Requirement to Assist in Removal and

a Warning for Failure to Depart. Again, he refused a request to place a fingerprint on the

letter at the time of service, and refused to sign any of the documents (Id., Exh 65).

Partovi filed his first habeas petition on June 6, 2003, and an amended habeas petition

on June 4, 2004. See Partovi v. Ashcroft, CIV-03-1098-PHX-EHC (JJM). In his petition,

he contended that he had been granted relief from removal, that because he did not speak

English he was unable to communicate with the immigration judge, resulting in an order of

removal, and that he had complied with the government’s efforts to obtain travel documents.

On September 7, 2005, he filed a motion for release claiming that his continued detention

violated his constitutional rights. The District Court adopted the Magistrate Judge’s

recommendation that the Court lacked jurisdiction to review any allegations regarding the

entry of Partovi’s final order of removal. The District Court also adopted the Magistrate

Judge’s conclusion that Partovi had not been granted asylum in the United States, and that

his continued detention did not violate his constitutional rights because he had not cooperated

with the government’s efforts to remove him. On April 6, 2009, Partovi filed this petition,

again arguing that his continued detention violates his constitutional rights.

DISCUSSION

Respondents first argue that this Court lacks jurisdiction, arguing that res judicata

bars federal review. Because “it is axiomatic that res judicata is inapplicable in habeas

proceedings,” the Court rejects this argument. See Johnson v. Lumpkin, 769 F.2d 630, 636

(9th Cir. 1985). Respondents also contend that Partovi’s petition is a prohibited second or

Case 2:09-cv-00713-SRB Document 30 Filed 05/04/10 Page 4 of 6
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 - 5 -

successive petition because the legality of Partovi’s detention was determined by the Court

in his previous habeas petition. While the Court agrees that it need not redetermine the

legality of his detention up to June 4, 2004, the date of his amended petition, no federal court

has yet ruled on Partovi’s continued detention since that date. Therefore, the legality of his

continuous detention from June 2004 until his petition was filed in April 2009 is properly

before the Court.

In Zadvydas, the Supreme Court established a six-month period during which

continued detention is presumptively reasonable. Following this six-month period, an alien

may be confined “until it has been determined that there is no significant likelihood of

removal in the reasonably foreseeable future.” 533 U.S. at 701. In addition, there is statutory

authority for continued detention:

The removal period shall be extended beyond a period of 90 days and

the alien may remain in detention during such extended period if the alien fails

or refuses to make timely application in good faith for travel or other

documents necessary to the alien’s departure or conspires or acts to prevent the

alien’s removal.

8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1)(C).

In this case, Partovi’s continued detention is a direct result of his long-standing failure to

cooperate with or assist in his removal. Partovi admits in his Reply that he has refused to

sign the required documents and has refused to cooperate in obtaining travel documents for

“more than seven years” (Doc. #29). In such cases, the removal period can be suspended,

and the limitation announced in Zadvydas does not apply. See Pelich v. INS, 329 F.3d 1057,

1060 (9th Cir. 2003). Partovi’s long history of refusing to cooperate with his removal

supports his continued detention.

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that Ali Partovi’s petition for writ of

habeas corpus be denied and dismissed with prejudice (Doc. #1).

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that a Certificate of Appealability and leave

to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal be denied because Partovi has not made a substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.

Case 2:09-cv-00713-SRB Document 30 Filed 05/04/10 Page 5 of 6
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 - 6 -

This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth

Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules of

Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the district court’s judgment. The

parties shall have fourteen days from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation

within which to file specific written objections with the Court. See, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1);

Rules 72, 6(a), 6(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Thereafter, the parties have seven

days within which to file a response to the objections. Failure timely to file objections to the

Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation may result in the acceptance of the Report

and Recommendation by the district court without further review. See United States v.

Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). Failure timely to file objections to any

factual determinations of the Magistrate Judge will be considered a waiver of a party’s right

to appellate review of the findings of fact in an order or judgment entered pursuant to the

Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. See Rule 72, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

DATED this 4th day of May, 2010.

Case 2:09-cv-00713-SRB Document 30 Filed 05/04/10 Page 6 of 6