Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_20-cv-00055/USCOURTS-azd-2_20-cv-00055-0/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

WO

MW

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Narinder Singh Heer,

Petitioner,

v. 

Chad Wolf, et al.,

Respondents.

No. CV-20-00055-PHX-JAT (JFM)

ORDER

Petitioner Narinder Singh Heer, who is detained in the CoreCivic La Palma 

Correctional Center in Eloy, Arizona, has filed, through counsel, a Petition for Writ of 

Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. 1) and an Emergency Motion to Stay 

Removal (Doc. 2). The Court will deny the Motion without prejudice and require 

Respondents to answer the Petition.

I. Background

Petitioner is a native and citizen of India. On June 29, 2019, he entered the United 

States without inspection at an unknown location and was encountered and taken into 

custody by the United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS) the same day. 

(Docs. 1 ¶ 34; 1-2 at 55-56.) Petitioner was determined to be inadmissible to the United 

States and placed in expedited removal proceedings pursuant to Immigration and 

Naturalization Act (INA) § 235(b)(1), 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1). (Doc. 1 ¶ 35.) Petitioner 

expressed a fear of persecution or torture if returned to India and was referred for a credible 

fear determination. 

Case 2:20-cv-00055-JAT-JFM Document 4 Filed 01/10/20 Page 1 of 5
- 2 -

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

TERMPSREF

On August 16, 2019, Petitioner received a credible fear interview. (Docs. 1 ¶ 35; 

1-2 at 34-49.) An asylum officer found Petitioner was credible but that he had not 

established a credible fear of persecution or torture, in that there was not a significant 

possibility Petitioner could establish eligibility for asylum, withholding of removal, or 

protection under Article III of the United Nations Convention Against Torture. (Doc. 1-2

at 48-52.) The asylum officer reasoned that “[a]lthough [Petitioner had] established a 

significant possibility of past persecution on account of his political opinion, there [was]

substantial evidence that [Petitioner] could internally relocate and that it would be 

reasonable for him to do so,” and “the record [did] not establish a significant possibility 

that it is more likely than not [Petitioner would] be subjected to severe pain or suffering in 

another state of India.” (Id. at 51.)1 The determination was approved by a supervisory 

asylum officer and Petitioner was ordered removed from the United States. (Id. at 49.) 

Petitioner requested review of the credible fear determination by an Immigration 

Judge (IJ), and on September 27, 2019, the IJ affirmed the asylum officer’s credible fear 

determination. (Doc. 1 ¶ 36.)2 

II. Petition

In his Petition, Petitioner names Acting DHS Secretary Chad Wolf, United States 

Attorney General William Barr, Acting United States Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement (ICE) Director Matthew T. Albence, Acting United States Immigration and 

Citizenship Services (USCIS) Director Kenneth Cuccinelli, ICE Phoenix Field Office 

Director Henry Lucero, and La Palma Correctional Center Warden Chuck Keeton as 

Respondents.

3 Petitioner brings three grounds for relief and asserts that this Court has 

 

1 The asylum officer also found there was not a significant possibility that Petitioner 

could establish eligibility for humanitarian asylum based on the severity of the past 

persecution. (Doc. 1-2 at 51.)

2 See Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) Telephonic Case Status 

Information System (Ph. 1-800-898-7180) (last accessed Jan. 9, 2020).

3 Under the rationale articulated in Armentero, infra, and in the absence of authority 

addressing who is the proper respondent in immigration habeas corpus proceedings under 

§ 2241, the Court will not dismiss Respondents or the Petition for failure to name a proper 

Case 2:20-cv-00055-JAT-JFM Document 4 Filed 01/10/20 Page 2 of 5
- 3 -

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

TERMPSREF

habeas corpus jurisdiction to review his claims pursuant to the Ninth Circuit’s decision in 

Thuraissigiam v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 917 F.3d 1097 (9th Cir. 2019), cert. 

granted, No. 19-161 (Oct. 18, 2019).

4

 

In Grounds One and Two, Petitioner claims that his credible fear proceedings denied 

him a fair and meaningful opportunity to apply for relief in violation of the governing 

statute and implementing regulations, 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1) and 8 C.F.R. §§ 208.30(d),

1208.13(b), and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Petitioner alleges the 

asylum officer failed to employ the required non-adversarial procedures when conducting 

his credible fear interview, improperly allocated the burden of proof, and misapplied the 

relevant regulations and binding case law when evaluating his credible fear claim. In 

Ground Three, Petitioner requests attorney’s fees and costs under the Equal Access to 

Justice Act.

In his demand for relief, Petitioner asks the Court to: (1) determine that his expedited 

removal order violated his statutory, regulatory, and constitutional rights and, as a result, 

he is being detained in violation of the law; (2) vacate the expedited removal order; and (3) 

order that he “be provided a new, meaningful opportunity to apply for asylum and other 

relief from removal.” (Doc. 1 at 18-19.)

The Court will require Respondents Wolf, Barr, Albence, Cuccinelli, Lucero, and 

Keeton to answer the Petition.

III. Emergency Motion to Stay Removal

In the Ninth Circuit, “a petitioner seeking a stay of removal must show that 

irreparable harm is probable and either: (a) a strong likelihood of success on the merits and 

 

respondent at this stage of the proceedings. See Armentero v. INS, 340 F.3d 1058, 1071-

73 (9th Cir. 2003) (finding the DHS Secretary and the Attorney General were proper 

respondents), withdrawn, 382 F.3d 1153 (9th Cir. 2004) (order); see also Rumsfeld v. 

Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 435 n.8 (2004) (declining to resolve whether the Attorney General 

is a proper respondent in an immigration habeas corpus petition).

4

In Thuraissigiam, the Ninth Circuit found that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(e)(2)’s statutory 

limitation on habeas corpus review “violate[d] the Suspension Clause as applied to 

Thuraissigiam,” and held “[t]he district court ha[d] jurisdiction and, on remand, should 

exercise that jurisdiction to consider Thuraissigiam’s legal challenges to the procedures 

leading to his expedited removal order.” 917 F.3d at 1119.

Case 2:20-cv-00055-JAT-JFM Document 4 Filed 01/10/20 Page 3 of 5
- 4 -

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

TERMPSREF

that the public interest does not weigh heavily against a stay; or (b) a substantial case on 

the merits and that the balance of hardships tips sharply in the petitioner’s favor.” LeivaPerez v. Holder, 640 F.3d 962, 970 (9th Cir. 2011) (discussing application of Nken v. 

Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 444 (2009)).

In his Emergency Motion, Petitioner asks the Court to stay his removal from the 

United States and to enjoin his transfer outside of Arizona for the duration of these 

proceedings. The Motion will be denied without prejudice. Although Petitioner alleges 

that he will suffer “grave, irreparable harm if removed” (Doc. 2 at 10), he has not alleged 

any specific facts indicating that he is at risk of imminent removal, such that he should be 

granted an emergency stay before Respondents can be heard in opposition. Nor has 

Petitioner offered any discussion in support of his request to enjoin his transfer.

In its discretion, however, the Court will require that if Respondents intend to 

remove Petitioner from the United States prior to the conclusion of this matter, they must

file and serve a notice of their intent to remove him in advance, so as to afford Petitioner a 

reasonable opportunity to file a motion for a stay of removal. Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED:

(1) Petitioner’s Emergency Motion for a Stay of Removal (Doc. 2) is denied 

without prejudice. 

(2) If Respondents intend to remove Petitioner from the United States prior to 

the Court’s disposition of this matter, Respondents must file a “Notice of Intent to Remove”

with the Clerk of Court and serve a copy on Petitioner at least 10 days prior to the scheduled 

date of removal.

(3) The Clerk of Court shall email a copy of this Order to the Immigration TRO 

Distribution List.

(4) The Clerk of Court shall serve: (1) a copy of the Summons, (2) the 

Petition (Doc. 1), (3) the Emergency Motion for a Stay of Removal (Doc. 2), and (4) this 

Order upon the United States Attorney for the District of Arizona by certified mail 

addressed to the civil process clerk at the office of the United States Attorney pursuant to 

Case 2:20-cv-00055-JAT-JFM Document 4 Filed 01/10/20 Page 4 of 5
- 5 -

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

TERMPSREF

Rule 4(i)(1)(A) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Clerk of Court shall also send 

by certified mail a copy of the Summons, the Petition, the Emergency Motion for a Stay of 

Removal, and this Order to the United States Attorney General pursuant to Rule 4(i)(1)(B) 

and to Respondents Wolf, Barr, Albence, Cuccinelli, Lucero, and Keeton pursuant to Rule 

4(i)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

(5) Respondents shall have 30 days from the date of service to answer the 

Petition (Doc. 1). Respondents shall not file a dispositive motion in place of an answer 

absent leave of Court.

(6) Petitioner shall have 15 days from the filing of Respondents’ Answer to the 

Petition to file a Reply. Failure to file a Reply may be deemed as consent to the denial of 

the Petition on the grounds presented in Respondents’ Answer.

(7) Petitioner must file a “Notice of Change in Status” with the Clerk of Court 

within 5 days of any material change in Petitioner’s immigration or custody status. 

Petitioner may not include a motion for other relief with the Notice.

(8) This matter is referred to Magistrate Judge James F. Metcalf pursuant to 

Rules 72.1 and 72.2 of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure for further proceedings and a 

report and recommendation.

Dated this 10th day of January, 2020.

Case 2:20-cv-00055-JAT-JFM Document 4 Filed 01/10/20 Page 5 of 5